you’re kinda close, but still missing the mark… but if you didn’t understand the point, you have your mind set to being stupid and stubborn & I won’t waste energy trying to sway your opinion.
If you’re not willing to fight for your constitutional rights, then you don’t deserve to have them, and you will lose them.
Whether you think it’s right or not, being able to create nudified images of yourself is a perfectly valid and constitutionally protected action, just like making pornography generally. And any attempt to ban these apps would also restrict numerous other constitutionally protected activities and involve severe violations of privacy.
If you want to make an actual reply that gets to the core of my argument, rather than just going, “bruh, you think you should be able to rob a bank, no I refuse to actually explain anything, if you don’t get my unstated point, you’re a moron,” then go ahead.
Constitutional rights are important. You cannot choose to abandon them just because you find one application of them distasteful.
We can ban AI child porn by just treating it like any other child porn. We don’t try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras. Go after the actual crime you want to prevent, not the tools that have many legitimate uses.
We don’t try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras.
No, we try to ban it in its entirety by outlawing csam generating machines. Simple. If they can’t make they app without making the csam, they should not be allowed to make the app, and no, csam is not a first amendment right.
Come on, that’s a warped bad-faith take and you know it. Making child porn with a film camera is illegal. Every camera is capable of making child porn. But we don’t outlaw cameras, or adult pornography, simply because the same tools allow the creation of child porn.
No, you are defending pedophiles. Stop it. It’s not a good look.
Imagine an artist consortium in Maine run by a venture capitalist. Imagine they take comissions - you submit your request and electronic payment, and they email your art back to you in a week. Protected first amendment “speech”? OK. Now imagine they’re well known for generating csam and the CEO refuses to intervene. First amendment doesn’t protect them or the CEO, and an awful lot of them are going to jail for a long time.
Was there anything the CEO could have done? Of course there was. Is there anything LLM companies could do? You’re flat out lying if you say there isn’t. And unlike you, I don’t care if they as a company decide to refuse to process any nude images as a result of their unwillingness to take on the risk or the complexity. But I think it’s a lot easier than people claim for a company that literally makes very sophisticated neural networks anyway and it wouldn’t stop them making image manipulation ai.
Have a better example?
Bank robbery is theft, hardly a protected First Amendment activity.
you’re kinda close, but still missing the mark… but if you didn’t understand the point, you have your mind set to being stupid and stubborn & I won’t waste energy trying to sway your opinion.
If you’re not willing to fight for your constitutional rights, then you don’t deserve to have them, and you will lose them.
Whether you think it’s right or not, being able to create nudified images of yourself is a perfectly valid and constitutionally protected action, just like making pornography generally. And any attempt to ban these apps would also restrict numerous other constitutionally protected activities and involve severe violations of privacy.
If you want to make an actual reply that gets to the core of my argument, rather than just going, “bruh, you think you should be able to rob a bank, no I refuse to actually explain anything, if you don’t get my unstated point, you’re a moron,” then go ahead.
Constitutional rights are important. You cannot choose to abandon them just because you find one application of them distasteful.
We can ban AI child porn by just treating it like any other child porn. We don’t try to regulate child porn by outlawing cameras. Go after the actual crime you want to prevent, not the tools that have many legitimate uses.
No, we try to ban it in its entirety by outlawing csam generating machines. Simple. If they can’t make they app without making the csam, they should not be allowed to make the app, and no, csam is not a first amendment right.
By your logic, we should outlaw cameras. Every camera is capable of making child pornography.
It’s like you never read my comment, and it’s like you don’t know the difference between an llm and a tape recorder.
Generating csam is not a first amendment activity, you are talking crap.
Come on, that’s a warped bad-faith take and you know it. Making child porn with a film camera is illegal. Every camera is capable of making child porn. But we don’t outlaw cameras, or adult pornography, simply because the same tools allow the creation of child porn.
You are talking crap.
No, you are defending pedophiles. Stop it. It’s not a good look.
Imagine an artist consortium in Maine run by a venture capitalist. Imagine they take comissions - you submit your request and electronic payment, and they email your art back to you in a week. Protected first amendment “speech”? OK. Now imagine they’re well known for generating csam and the CEO refuses to intervene. First amendment doesn’t protect them or the CEO, and an awful lot of them are going to jail for a long time.
Was there anything the CEO could have done? Of course there was. Is there anything LLM companies could do? You’re flat out lying if you say there isn’t. And unlike you, I don’t care if they as a company decide to refuse to process any nude images as a result of their unwillingness to take on the risk or the complexity. But I think it’s a lot easier than people claim for a company that literally makes very sophisticated neural networks anyway and it wouldn’t stop them making image manipulation ai.