This issue is receiving more awareness and I am so grateful for it. I had this in the back of my mind last summer as it was a topic discussed with my supervisor during my internship with CCU.
I am interested to see more awareness of this issue for the public, especially from a legal standpoint. How will prosecutors handle this type of charge? The argument of, "Well, it is not a real child so there was no actual harm done." This is a dangerous misconception as it minimizes the damage that would have been done if the AI CSAM was an actual child in CSAM. It also dismisses the individual involved in the creation of AI CSAM, who have a serious mental disorder and should be prosecuted for acting on their perverse desires.
It will also be interesting to see how juries will interpret this should cases involving AI CSAM go to court. Much like a murder trial, it is easier to convince a jury to charge an individual when there is physical evidence of a crime (in a murder, having the body of a victim). How will a jury interpret evidence like AI CSAM when it is entirely electronic? How would a prosecutor convince them the individual behind it actually created it and it was not someone else? How would a prosecutor convince a jury that a crime did occur and this person must face the consequences, despite there not being physical proof of a child being harmed?
Another aspect of the development of AI CSAM is what software companies are doing to prevent this type of material from being created on their platforms. Do we hold them accountable for said material being created using their software, especially when it is distributed and downloaded by other users around the world? How do we approach this if companies have filters to prevent this type of material from being created but it still happens anyway? Is there a way these companies can work with law enforcement to prevent the creation of this material and report users who create it to them?
While there is current legislation and programs combating CSAM and AI CSAM, there is room for improvement for legislation. Some pieces are a bit outdated so I hope legislation will eventually be adapted to modern times. It should not only include specifications for consequences for those creating AI CSAM but also distributing it. Much like how some dismiss the harms of those creating AI CSAM/CSAM, there is also some dismissal of those who possess/distribute it. Some may view them as less harmful (especially if it is determined to be AI CSAM) as they were not directly involved in the creation of it. People who feel this way fail to see the real life impact distribution/possession of CSAM/AI CSAM has on an individual, especially a child, as it not only continues their victimization and dehumanization, but furthers the trauma they suffer.
Please keep this in mind, especially if you have children and/or are working with AI. Be mindful of this danger and be active in spreading awareness to those around you!
Generative AI CSAM is CSAM.
The creation and circulation of GAI CSAM (Generative AI Child Sexual Abuse Material) is harmful and illegal.
This is not a victimless crime, read more: https://lnkd.in/edWFmH3W
Children's Alliance Task Force 2021 Global Initiative -Putting Kids First FFFF INC & SWFLMHA
3moMy issue is how many interventions were carried out with any of the over 4,000 tips?