This is basically the legalization of CP as it creates an impossible standard for prosecutors >Find CP in someone's Device >> Relax Bro, is just AI ^ Becomes a defacto Defense. 1) There is not objective way to prove reliable if something is AI or not2) Even if it were, Prosecutor will still require to FIND THE VICTIM, otherwise there is not way to prove "The AI is not depicting a real person"
>>541666983>There is not objective wayBack to school Rajesh.
>>541666983It depends on if it is "known CSAM". Because then if it is hashed and matches a CSAM hash database they got you. I learned this when adding CSAM protection by AI to my site pcmasterrace.forum which has 2 separate AI CSAM detectors that report people to the FBI automatically. One uses known CSAM hash matching, the other is an AI intelligent enough to actually look at images.
Egon Cholakian was right.
good
>>541666983>FIND THE VICTIMWell fucking duh! If there is no victim there is no fucking crime, no matter how much the image looks like it depicts a child getting hurt. If there is no child, there is no crime. It's fucking retarded that this needs to be said.
>>541666983a virus could just generate cp on your computer, the person infecting you wouldn't have actually possessed any cp. I think that's a good law.
>>541666983>1) There is not objective way to prove reliable if something is AI or notyes there isand that 'law' by that insectoid judge is pedo protection measure and grooming/enabling mechanismmaybe they need more gub workers in the futurewho knowsgo to wiki check history of that judge
>>541667145YOU DONT UNDERSTAND GOOYHEMWE NEED TO SURVEEIL YOU AND FABRICATE REASON TO PUT YOU IN CONCRETE ROOM SURROUNDED BY GUNSBECAUSE WE LOVE YOU AND FREEDOMITS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD
>>541667167something something Get this man HD examined, something something.
>>541667185>yes there isWhat tool?
>>541667072Ok but you can change the hash by changing 1 pixel in the image or appending 1s of blackscreen to the video, or not?
>>541667271maybe. i dont know how hashing works.
>you can't look at fake cp because the real thing is badBy this logic, fictional murder scenes in movies should also be banned.
>>541666983>1) There is not objective way to prove reliable if something is AI or notYou can prove something is AI if it has the AI watermarks that are being used in some AI's now.
>>541666983>>1) There is not objective way to prove reliable if something is AI or notYou can find the real child the picture is of.Metadata, the FBI has the largest private collection of child pornography on the planet.
>>541667548do you honestly believe the FBI are sitting around jerking it to cp collection
>>541667599It's one of the perks of the job.
>>541666983This is all just projection because conservatives are all church sex predators.
>>541666983>There is no objective way to prove reliable if something is AI or notThis is not universally trueBasically anything created before AI got good enough to make a plausible facsimile of it is proven to be not AI from the date of origin alone. Also, feds have identified a lot of CP and own a lot of honeypots. They might not be able to prove a specific image they've never seen before is AI, unless they rescued the victim from the pedo's basement or something, but pedos usually collect a lot and images where they know who the victim was and that it's a real photo would usually be mixed in.Furthermore, I know there are tells for other form of AI content, if you know what to look for. Things computers do that humans won't, like the constant "it's not X it's Y" for ChatGPT text. Seems likely that genned CP would have some tells too, and that experts could testify about them.
>>541667446fucking genius. fictional !!FAKE!! murder to real murder is the same as "fake" but functionally real cp to real cp. just say youre a degenerate
>>541667420Germanon is technically right, but the hashing algorithm might be less brittle than that and acts on some compressed representation of the image rather than the raw pixel map. It would have to be to be useful.
>>541666983Yeah, that's how the Founders intended it to work, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. The exact same complaint works the other way around with AI images being very easy to create and put on someone's computer; but in America where all men are innocent until proven guilty, we accept that some guilty will go free while we make sure that no innocent men go to prison.So tell those FBI agents to get up off their lazy fucking asses and do their homework.
>>541666983yes, and ...?prosecute the production of CP that uses real children. that's where the harm is, right?
>>541667767>fictional fake real fake fictional fake fake wharrgarbl!!murders in movies are more real than AI CP, because real people are playing the roles.
>>541666983Jeet IQ
>>541667767You’re having an indian moment
OP botting threads again
>>541666983>1) There is not objective way to prove reliable if something is AI or notJust like printers don't print a tiny yellow series of dots on every printed page. Mmmm hmmm.
>>541666983>There is not objective way to prove reliable if something is AI or notmake it cheaper to be AI and nobody will harm real children anymore => no need to prove. otherwise, a blockchain-based solution would be completely feasible, except for the problems with operating such an infrastructure in the current atmosphere.
>>541667271No. You need to modify it a lot more than that. Pic related. I took some random lust provoking bait image from the catalog and recolored some random pixels in the wall. If you calculate the pHash of the original or the modified image they both have the value of : a6b38d8d969ccc68If you use average hash they both have the value : 3f07050765393020https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_hashingIf you know how to use Python you can use this package : https://pypi.org/project/ImageHash/ to see how much you can edit the image until the hash breaks.
If they can prove the model was trained on CSAM then the output is probably something that they could find you guilty on.Even if not, the csam training data would be illegal to possess. I'm in favor of just killing heavy users of AI anyways.
>>541666983Lolibros...
>>541666983haven't they prosecuted for ai-generated "cp" before? I don't think they even care whether it's ai or not
>>541669589no in USA. well, they are suing Grok/ Twitter cause "If your model can output CP, it means it was trained with CP, ergo Twitter// Grok should be charged with possession of CP"
>>541667271The pictures are usually broken into 16x16 pixel chunks and those are hashed and hashed as neighbors and so on. Some softwares will also calculate the has of flipped or rotated images.
>>541666983No victim, no crime. Sorry kike faggot.
>>541667072Only if you're producing or distributing. They could give a fuck less about private stashes.
>>541666983potato potato
>>541666983not sure if this is good or bad
