Because Kaptain Ketamine knows that the main use of his “AI” is to generate child porn.
Because building a tool that can do anything is easier than building a tool that can’t do evil.
It’s the gun argument, where they absolve themselves and pass all responsibility to the end user.
This is the grownup and correct answer imo
It may be the grownup answer, but given the absolute prevelence of baby rape amongst the epstein class… We can wager that its not the correct answer, because it is stopping them from accessing a kind of baby rape (that was probably generated thanks to hundreds of thousands of images of actual baby rape being used in training).
because lets face it, Theres been no repercussions for any of it thus far, Why would they expect there to be any in the future.
I’m not saying I don’t think it’s possible, it’s just that training models is not done by just Elon and a laptop on the sofa with a box of tissues - it’s probably a small army of professionals that would all be aware of and have access to child porn - I just don’t think (or don’t want to believe?) there’s no one who would blow the whistle
I just don’t think (or don’t want to believe?) there’s no one who would blow the whistle
Epstein ran a child sex ring for at least 20 years, and for most of that time we heard almost nothing umtil the end… and largely, i imagine, because trumps an idiot in decline.
People come forward and then they are silenced.
AI slop is good for something after all…
Felt like one of the very few times grabbing a Gen AI image was appropriate lol.
This image seems like misleading bull shit. This seems to be the law referenced: https://apnews.com/article/minnesota-artificial-intelligence-nudification-x-elon-musk-deepfake-131184be939d540de093b567b12c9e16
It makes companies liable for people using ai for nudification (which of course includes children). Musk argues the law is a bit to far reaching ( claims the law considers some body parts, that are commonly displayed in public, as private parts and also that the company can get in trouble for people nudifying themselves).
I don’t know how legitimate Musk’s concerns are, but the image is extremely misleading.
Dishonest clickbait for sure
Always relevant
The damages are brought up in a civil trial, so I guess while someone could bring a case to trial for nudifying themselves, I imagine it’d be tossed out immediately:
An individual depicted in an image or video that was nudified in violation of this section may bring a civil action in district court against the person who violated this section
These are the body parts listed:
“Intimate parts” includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.
Yeah, its not naked kids specifically but “nudification” in general. And what’s considered private? A woman’s chest? OK but how far down? Stuff like that.
I’d imagine Google or Apple or any tech/AI company would do the same to protect their product or whatever. But they make it seem like this was a tool Elon specifically designed so he can see naked kids.
Elon’s under the most scrutiny because Grok is the least restricted LLM. Of course om reasonably worried that they are blocking this for less savory reasons.
What do you mean by least restricted?
Grok will do a lot of things that Claude or gemini or OpenAI will refuse to do for you (at least without a lot of prodding)
He shouldn’t have shoved it into every perverts hands.
Literally nothing that Racist PedoFascist does in legitimate. He just doesn’t want to be sued because he made CP machine which I garuntee he gets high AF to and jerks off to. Especially since Epstein wouldn’t let him on the island.
And this is why whether it’s Reddit or this site it doesn’t make a difference. Clickbait and dumb people always dominate the conversation and nuance is immediately thrown out the window because nuance does not translate well on the internet when you are trying to gather points.
The worst part is that this guy actually has endless things you can point to to show what a scumbag he is but yet there has to be stuff like this that delegitimizes opposition to him.
Fuck that, he should be 100% liable if he sells a machine that is ised to make child porn wtf you mean clickbait. This is the only way to stop it, otherwise it’s going to happen because the companies will make money off it.
Because law needs to be very precise and nuanced otherwise you end up with complete nonsense laws that infringe on the rights of people. I 100% agree AI child porn is awful and should be figured out. But if the law is no crafted correctly it creates problems. It’s clickbait because the image just implies that Elon Musk is in favor of people generating child porn but I’m sure its more nuanced than that if you take a look. Thats all I’m saying
I haven’t looked at this in depth, but some of the scholars I follow have suggested that this law is legally problematic, and there are good arguments to strike it down under the first amendment and section 230.
Section 230 is the federal safe harbor law that shields social media from liability for their users content, provided they take certain reasonable steps to moderate the user content. The federal law will preempt this Minnesota state law if they conflict.
But in the case of AI, it’s company a generated content.
Section 230 should only cover user contributed content, not corpo AI created content. And even then algorithm promoted content shouldn’t be covered either.
Government wanting to blame tools instead of what people do with the tools.
Next we should make Milwaukee stop selling saw zaws because they cut down flock cameras, or hammers because they can beat people in the head.
I’m not sure I’m seeing the legitimate use case of turning pictures of children into nude pictures of children.
The application has normal non fucked up things it’s used for. It’s not a “make naked kids app”. It’s like going after Photoshop.
Damn near anything can be used to do something illegal. It’s the same overbearing government control that has been playing big brother to 3D printers. Go after the person doing something illegal instead of screwing with everyone and everything else.
No, no, hard disagree. First go after the people making the csam generator and refusing to countenance censoring it from that. No excuses. No comparing csam to free speech or 3D printing.
You just scraped right over me comparing it to Photoshop.
You’re only like this because Musk is a douchebag. Take him out of the equation. It’s a photo editor. There’s tons of them. It’s idiotic to go after a program or anything just because it can be used by bad people. Go after the people.
It’s the same shit as tor or vpns or Linux or 3d printers or GrapheneOS. “oh. Think of the children. Think of the terrorists. Think of the violence”. It’s all the same bullshit.
What’s the next stop down after going after a photo editor? I guess the only way to make sure they aren’t used for csam is to only have photo editors that are used over the cloud so all images can be scanned and interpreted.
You just scraped right over me comparing it to Photoshop.
And I’ll skip right over you comparing it to scissors and paper too.
It’s the same shit as tor or vpns or Linux or 3d printers or GrapheneOS
No, none of them generate csam.
I’m not supporting banning Photoshop or tor, or even ai based image manipulation - that one was your straw man.
I’m only going after a company if their software generates csam. Simple. If they tell me it can’t be done, I tell them they need to either keep working until it can, or make some other software.
Don’t tell me an ai can’t recognise csam because recognition is a neural network’s strong suit. If you can instruct it to make it, you build it to reject prompts that involve nudity and minors and warn users that if they try again it’ll inform on them to the FBI and Interpol. If that means that the companies won’t risk generative being used on adult porn, I really don’t care.
Musk wants this csam feature for himself and his porn-generating customers. And I don’t care that it’s Musk. I’d go for Microsoft and Google and Anthropic and anyone else, and I wouldn’t be sorry if the whole LLM industry went bust. The biggest, most unsustainable financial bubble ever is going to burst and take the economy with it anyway. It was only ever a redundancy machine anyway, and I won’t miss it.
Let’s ban knives because people use them to kill!
In the UK before AI even existed our laws covered this and make it illegal.
Afaik loli is also illegal and considered CSAM in the US so I have no idea why AI images wouldnt be similarly illegal
Logically, I mean. Practically, like most things in America, I know the answer is “because rich people want it that way, fuck you”
Exactly when again is the wildest party on your friends’ island, Elon?
Elon was friend with Jeff but Jeff wasn’t friends with him. Kinda awkward.
Dear Elon:
Your requests to visit the island for one of my wildest parties have become annoying, and I’m tired of side-stepping them, so I’m going to be straight with you: You will NOT be visiting my island.
It’s hard enough to keep these girls in the game as it is, forcing them to pretend to enjoy fucking these fat old sweaty pervs. You are scary enough with your clothes on, I can’t imagine how terrified the girls would be with a naked goblin hopping around, hollering incomprehensible nonsense. They’re only little girls, after all.
So, the answer is No, you can’t come to my island. Stop begging.
Your friend,
Jeff
“Barrel chested ewok you look like you eat gravel” was my favourite description of him
…and why do you think your calls were sent to voicemail?
I mean… why would you imagine a person would block the banning of child porn? Occam’s razor says he enjoys child porn.
Honestly, fuck Musk, but the fact that we’re willing to throw away all of our principles simply because Musk is involved is pretty terrifying to witness. Remember, every privacy-violating and rights-stripping law is sold as being “for the children.” And those selling those laws make a point to sell the laws in ways that appeal to both sides. When selling it to Democrats, they’ll highlight Musk’s opposition. When selling it to Republicans, they would find some Democrat who opposed it. And people of both parties eat it right up.
For example, even the headline is deceiving. Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it’s made.
What the law actually does is to attempt to ban or restrict AI-based nudify apps, where you can upload an image of someone and have it remove their clothes. This applies to images of everyone, not just children. And just like the case of facial scans and ID uploading, inevitably such a law will restrict a hell of a lot more than just child porn.
From another article:
In the 38-page lawsuit, xAI — whose AI model chatbot and image generator Grok is available on the social media platform known as X, formerly Twitter, and elsewhere — said it does not contest the state’s interest in banning the distribution of AI-generated nude images of real people without their consent. But it said Minnesota’s law “extends far beyond that goal,” banning many constitutionally protected images and video and subjecting the company to a penalty of $500,000 per violation.
What legitimate uses might exist? Well what if I want to use a nudify program on images of myself? I don’t particularly want to do that. But why shouldn’t I be able to? My body. My image. My choice. My computer. What if a sex worker wants to do so? Or if you lock down LLMs to try to keep them from generating such images, what other types of images that have nothing to do with nonconsensual pornography will you also restrict?
You should generally be extremely skeptical of anyone selling a policy “for the children.” In almost every case, the real goal is stripping away broader rights.
To me, this seems a lot like banning cameras in the name of fighting child pornography.
Think about it critically. Why would the Minnesota legislature need to ban AI-generated child porn? Child porn is already incredibly illegal, regardless of how it’s made.
To make a quick reply, you might want to look in to that. In some places if it isn’t a deepfake of a real child it’s as legal as the anime folk who draw the same awful shit, including some of the US.
Seems weird as fuck to me, because that’s putting the burden of proof on law enforcement and the courts to show that a person or act in a very real looking image actually took place. Checking now I see some things saying it’s not specifically criminalized in 10 states and some things saying 5.
I’d say at least the federal government has made it clear it’s considered every bit as bad as non-ai images of the same thing, but I can’t even bring myself to believe the federal government is doing a damn thing about child rape any more. :/
if it isn’t a deepfake of a real child
This is literally what the law is trying to stop.
Which is bad. Not good. Yes, if someone makes deepfake child porn of a real kid that’s definitely very awful and bad. But it should also be just as illegal to make AI generated porn of children even if they’re not deepfakes of real kids.
Anime/digital images of minors having sex having been a thing for decades has fucked things up. Those have been criminalized in some places in the world, but are considered distasteful but legal art in lots of others. Since AI generated images are fictional digital images created entirely by a computer and don’t depict an actual crime taking place against an actual child, they can fall into the same legal area as hand drawn or other digitally made images of the same thing.
Laws focusing only on deepfakes of real kids are not good things, because all they do is put the burden of proof on the prosecution. It means that they need to prove this massive collection of photos of child rape they found on Steve Miller’s laptop are meant to depicting real kids, which means they need to find the real kids with nothing but AI generated photos of child rape before they can prove a crime has been committed.
When it’s found that someone has images of kids being raped, that should be enough. Whether you can ever locate the actual kids in the photos, whether you can ever prove this person is guilty of raping kids, possession of the photos in and of itself should be enough for them to be locked up, cause farther investigation, and for them to be sent to prison even if no farther crimes are discovered.
No one should be able to say “Oh, those aren’t fakes of real kids, it’s just fictional art.” and have that be an actual legal defense. This is potentially why Elon Musk wants to stop this bill. There are definitely people who want it to remain a legal loophole and possible viable defense for those caught with CSAM.
We must PROTECT the Children by
OUTLAWING Child Porn Creators!ALLOWING Child Porn Creators to know EXACTLY where Children are ALL The time via ID Verifications!the entire point of AI is to remove accountability from the process. if there are consequences, theres no reason to use AI and Elon’s investments are wasted.
TEMU Lex Luther can fuck right off
To be fair, what’s the point of the bill? Child porn is already illegal. It’s like the bills banning non-citizens from voting.
While they’re at it, why not ban murder, theft, and drunk driving?
Historically, bills like this that appear to be so obviously “good” are often traps that contain unrelated, nefarious shit. Like hiding a ban on abortion inside a bill that’s supposed to be about banning something everyone hates.
I’m highly skeptical of the bill but at the same time I wouldn’t put it past Elon to be against it for all the wrong reasons 🤷
I read the bill and there are explicit provisions about prohibiting websites from allowing users to create nudified images without technical skill. I don’t know existing laws but they might not have put the onus on the company/website and just on the users. This is the full bill, it’s a single page: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2025/0/HF/1606/versions/latest/
EDIT: Should point out that the bill is for any unwanted AI Generated nudes of identifiable people, not just minors.
Exactly. It’s all about nudification of anyone using AI tools. Not explicitly about children.
Yes, clarified my previous comment to include that fact since it was misleading based on the screenshot. Thanks.
While they’re at it, why not ban murder, theft, and drunk driving?
They already have.
But this closes the hole that the images are of people who dont exist so they are ageless. Idk of anyone has challenged it with that strategy but I can see the supreme cunts ruling that since they are not real people its not CSM. I haven’t read the bill but I hope this is the intention.
In your example it’d be CSM, just not CSAM I guess, technically. I think this is more about undressing real people though
I think one of the best arguments to ban AI child porn is because the models have to be trained on something, and that something would be of real children and therefore not a ‘victimless’ crime in that sense.
Seems fair. Is that really how the training works though? You’d hope they’d have a first-level filtering process that flags things before they get fed into the model but who knows.
There’s no way they had any sort of filtering. That would add way too much time and cost to the process of shoving in as much data as possible as fast as possible.
I’m more concerned about the origins of data used by Musk’s Company to train the models !
Many auto moderation tools use actual csam as reference so probably from there if i had to guess.
Isn’t it hash values of it rather than actual images? Or am I thinking of something else.
Yeah, most things that check for CSM content compare it with fuzzy hashes of known CSM content. Source: I teach cybersecurity classes and frequently have guest speakers from 3-letter agencies.
that Just shifts the responsibility some where else ? So I can Just buy a Moderation tool and get free actual and legal CSAM ?
I imagine this is related to people using Grok to undress others?
Yup. This is basically Musk admitting it’s a sizeable part of his revenue, he knows about it and doesn’t want to lose the clientele. Ghoulish.
He wants it banned for two reasons: he’s a pedophile and twatter makes him $$$ off child porn.
CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material), not child porn. Child porn implies they are complicit or that its a genre of porn. CSAM confirms that it exists exclusively to abuse children and they were abused in the making.
PORNOGRAPHY the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures, movies, or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
Pornography is not a wrong word to use, and children can never consent to sexual acts. If children are involved in pornography it is abuse material and nothing else. There is no need to make up a new word for it.
CSAM gives the same vibes as MAP instead of paedophile
For me the distinction lies in the word erotic. A basal attraction based on traits of the other. When two or more people are involved then I would expand the same criteria to all involved. And that’s were I am getting stuck. The victim’s are for sure not enjoying themselves and the interaction in general and dfntl arent attracted to the abuser.
My argument being: (child) sexual abuse (or rather violence) is shown to be about power and control rather than sexuality. Its just using the same media as sexual acts. So child abuse has as much to do with porn just as swimming does with being held underwater and drowned.
I got a jury duty summons a while ago and it stated what the defendant is being charged with and it was possession and distribution of child pornography. So that is what the federal government in the us appears to call it still.
I think you need to reread Orwell. And I’m not talking about 1984. Much of what Orwell wrote and was concerned about was the watering down and softening of language. And don’t knee-jerk think of just the popular surface-level image of 1984. We’re not talking government censorship or surveillance here. We’re talking about the long-term watering down of the language to strip it of its impact and power.
I get that what you’re saying is technically true, but we don’t need our language to be perfectly technically accurate, if the cost is taking away all the power of the words.
“Child Sexual Abuse Material.” Really? You just turned a 2 syllable label into a 10 syllable label. And you robbed the words of all their emotional impact and power.
“Child porn.” I instantly know exactly what that is. That has a very clear and specific meaning that anyone can understand in an instant. Everyone has seen porn and calls it as such. Append the word -child in front of that, and healthy people will feel an instant sense of revulsion in their stomach. “Child porn” is a label with POWER.
“Child Sexual Abuse Material.” What the fuck does that even mean? That could mean child porn. That could mean objects or tools used in the making of child porn. That could mean a newspaper article describing child porn. A book to train therapist on the effects of child abuse is, quite literally, “child sexual abuse material.” All of these things are material relating to child sexual abuse. By trying to make the label as bland and inoffensive as possible, you’ve taken all the gravity from it.
CSAM and bloated labels like it really get under my skin. It’s what Orwell warned us about.
And really, I think such things represent everything wrong with modern liberalism. A lot of liberal groups make the terrible mistake of focusing more on precise, perfectly non-offensive labeling than effective communication.
It’s child porn. “Child sexual abuse material” is too weak and generic a word to be effective. Read your Orwell. He warned us about this.
I’ve seen this argument a bunch, and I’ve gotta say it’s really weird to me.
I don’t know of a single person who would hear “child sexual abuse” and think it’s somehow harmless.
I don’t know of a single person who would hear “child porn” and think it’s somehow harmless.
If you’re used to hearing “child porn” and someone says “child sexual abuse material” you wouldn’t think it’s CP, since then they’d just say CP. It must be some kind of sexual abuse that is not as bad as CP, since they would call it that otherwise.
It’s even worse since “Child sexual abuse material” is so fucking long noone bothers to write it all, they just say CSAM, which has no meaning. If you don’t know what CSAM means, you won’t be shocked at all about the news. Meanwhile CP is most oftenly written as “child porn”, mostly using CP when “child porn” was already said. CP is a non-confusing name that everyone is familiar with, that is much more descriptive, and should generate hatred in the mind of any healthy person.
The only reason CSAM is used is because of American puritanism doesn’t let you say “porn”, which permeates to every enterprise setting. So you can’t call your software “child porn detection software” (think of the children!) you have to call it “CSAM detection software”. Pair that with the obnoxious need of some people to come up with new names for everything and call you *-ist for using the “old” name. And suddenly headlines are filled with random 4 letter acronyms without meaning instead of using the appropriate words.
I don’t know of a single person who would hear “child sexual abuse” and think it’s somehow harmless.
Irrelevant. The problem is emotional impact, not the literal meaning of the words.
Read Orwell’s Politics and the English Language. I’m basically cribbing from him.
The point is not that anyone would think the label is describing something harmless. The point is that it strips words of their power. Orwell extended this to say that clear language produces clear thinking.
“Child sexual abuse material” vs “child porn.”
“Age-restricted workforce implementation” vs “child labor.”
“Involuntary sexual intercourse” vs “rape.”
“Intentional cessation of third-party biological functions” vs “murder.”
“The Twentieth Century European Jewry Demographic Crisis” vs “The Holocaust.”
I can read the first version of each of those and understand their literal meaning just fine. But every syllable you add strips the power from the words. And much is lost as a consequence.
The point of communication is not only to impart the literal meaning of the words. It’s also to communicate emotional impact. “CSAM” and “child porn” share the same literal meaning, but their emotional definition is entirely different. They describe the same thing, but they are not the same word.
I don’t know anyone who would be confused by what “child porn” means. I think all this speech purity stuff distracts from the real harms going on. We don’t need more “um akchually” energy injected into every political issue.
It’s his free speech to let others see your children naked!
