A sex offender convicted of making more than 1,000 indecent images of children has been banned from using any “AI creating tools” for the next five years in the first known case of its kind.

Anthony Dover, 48, was ordered by a UK court “not to use, visit or access” artificial intelligence generation tools without the prior permission of police as a condition of a sexual harm prevention order imposed in February.

The ban prohibits him from using tools such as text-to-image generators, which can make lifelike pictures based on a written command, and “nudifying” websites used to make explicit “deepfakes”.

Dover, who was given a community order and £200 fine, has also been explicitly ordered not to use Stable Diffusion software, which has reportedly been exploited by paedophiles to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material, according to records from a sentencing hearing at Poole magistrates court.

  • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Right, and the google image ai gobbled up a bunch of images of black george washington, right? They must have been in the data set, there’s no way to blend a vector from one value to another, like you said. That would be madness. Nope, must have been copious amounts of asian nazis in the training set, since the model is incapable of blending concepts.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’re incorrect and you should fucking know better.

      I have no idea why my comment above was downvoted to hell but AI can’t “dream up” what a naked young person looks like. An AI can figure that adults wear different clothes and put a black woman in a revolutionary war outfit. These are totally different concepts.

      You can downvote me if you like but your AI generated csam is based on real csam so fuck off. I’m disappointed there is such a large proportion of people defending csam here especially since lemmy should be technically oriented - I expect to see more input from fellow AI fluent people.

          • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ok? Hundreds of images of anything isn’t going to necessarily train a model based on billions of images. Have you ever tried to get Stable Diffusion to draw a bow and arrow? Just because it has ever seen something doesn’t mean that it has learned it, nor, more importantly, does that mean that is the way it learned it, since we can see that it can infer many concepts from related concepts- pregnant old women, asian nazis, black george washingtons (NONE OF WHICH actually have ever existed or been photographed)… is unclothed children really more of a leap than any of those?

            • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              It is, yes. A black George Washington is one known visual motif (a George Washington costume) combined with another known visual motif. A naked prepubescent child isn’t just the combination of “naked adult” and “child” naked children don’t look like naked adults simply scaled down.

              AI can’t tell us what something we’ve never seen looks like… a kid who knows what George Washington and a black woman looks like can imagine a black George Washington. That’s probably a helpful analogy, AI can combine simple concepts but it can’t innovate - it can dream, but it can’t know something that we haven’t told it about.

              • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                What you’re saying is based on the predicate that the system can’t draw concepts it has never seen which is simply untrue. Everything else past that is sophistry.

                Edit: also not continuing a conversation with someone who is hostile to the basic rules of logic.

                • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You have a basic misunderstanding of how AI works and are endowing it with mystical properties. Generative AI can’t accurately infer concepts or items it doesn’t understand. It has all the knowledge of the internet but if you ask it to draw a schematic for a hydrogen bomb it’ll give you back hallucinated bullshit. I’ll grant that there’s a small chance that just enough random details have been leaked that the AI may actually know how to build a hydrogen bomb - but it can’t infer how that would work from “understanding physics”.

                  Either way, these models were trained on csam, so my initial point is accurate and not misinformation.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          6 months ago

          It isn’t misinformation, though, generative AI needs a basis for it’s generation.

          • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            The misinformation you’re spreading is related to how it works. A generative AI system will (without prompting away from it) create people with 3 heads, 8 fingers on each hand and multiple legs connecting to each other. Do you think it was trained on that? This argument of “it can generate it, therefore it was trained on it” is ridiculous. You clearly don’t understand how it works.

            • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              6 months ago

              You’re extremely correct when it comes to combining different aspects of existing works to generate something new - but AI can’t generate something it doesn’t know about. If a generative model knows what a prepubescent naked body looks like it has been exposed to them before. The most generous way to excuse this is that medical diagrams exist and supplied the majority of inputs for any prompts about cp to work off of. A must more realistic view is that some cp made it into the training set.

              I don’t disagree with any of your assessments but if you wanted a Van Gogh painting of a Glorp from Omnicron Persei 8, you’ll get out… something, but because the model has no reference for Glorps it’ll be hallucinations or guesses based on other terms it can find.

              To be clear, I’m coming at this from the angle as someone who has trained and evaluated models in a company that’s used them for the better part of a decade.

              I understand I’m going up against your earnestly held belief, but I’ve seen behind the curtain on a lot of this stuff and hopefully in time the way it works becomes demystified for more people.

              • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                For reference, the comment I made was improperly displayed, and I thought I replied to the wrong person. It said:

                Hi, I’m a mathematician that’s been following the development of generative neural networks for about a decade or more.

                You’re wrong. Your knowledge of the inner workings of these AI is accurate, but somehow you’ve reached an incorrect conclusion. I sometimes run a local instance of Stable Diffusion on my home PC, and it can make things that have never existed look totally unlike anything it’s ever seen, and yet match certain specifications in principle.

                I don’t use it to generate porn, so I can’t speak to the difficulties in avoiding csam while doing so. Mostly I generate is paintings in the style of Van Gogh, and it does a remarkable job of doing so, even when I can’t get it to do what I want. For example: it generated a painting of him in profile wearing armor when I asked for a weapon. I don’t think Van Gogh ever painted himself in profile, and he certainly never did so in armor. And yet the model was capable of imagining what this human-like figure so closely associated with the artist style “Van Gogh” would look like in profile because it knew what humans tend to look like in profile, and it could conceptualize how the features would present themselves. I’m certain that an AI can imagine a convincing image of simulated csam without ever having seen it, because these models really are just that good at imagining new things.

                • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Has your model seen humans in a profile view? Has it seen armor? Has it seen Van Gogh style paintings? If yes then it can create a combo of those things.

                  For CSAM it needs to know what porn looks like, what a child looks like and what a naked pubescent body looks like to create it. It didn’t make your van Gogh painting from nothing it had an idea of what those things were.

                  • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    it can create a combo of those things

                    Yes, that’s my point. It didn’t need to be trained on a portrait of Van Gogh in profile; it had several portraits of Van Gogh, a bunch of faces in profile, and used them to create something new. In the exact same way, a network trained on photos of people that include nude adult bodies and children in innocent situations can feasibly create facsimiles of csam without ever having been trained on it.

                  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Yea, specifically, the model shouldn’t have had access to a significant training set on naked prepubescent bodies - that’s been my main objection in this thread.

                • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Because it’s a transformation that can be accurately predicted, at least as far as we can conceive. This is sort of the problem with this thread - there are plenty of examples of derivative combinations that are being presented as counter examples but naked children don’t just look like adults scaled down. This is a rather unique situation because most people have been parents or siblings and know what naked children look like but photographs of that nudity are restricted and shouldn’t be included in model training.

                  The other example we might have to work with would be copywrited material but we know that models did consume material they weren’t licensed to - as a result AI has been able to generate Disney characters and the like in a recognizable way.