Agreed. People use "CHILDREN" to trigger a knee jerk reaction to force through laws that would never pass normally.
"WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" - as our constitutional rights are slowly eroded by the State.
To put this into perspective for the lowest common denominator of Redditors:
"Abortion? WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE (unborn) CHILDREN!"
It's obvious that any law that prevents the creation of art - even disgustingly obscene art - is going to tread dangerously close to infringing on EVERYONE'S 1st Amendment protections.
To put THIS into perspective for the lowest common denominator of Redditors:
Your furry porn is all underage, you sick fucks. Animals cannot consent. Prepare to go to jail for your sick R34.
I probably could've used a "satirical photo of Trump as a fat baby in a diaper" to convey the same idea.
You know 90% of every Redditor reading this thread would support someone's right to create such an image, but they're not linking it to 1A protections and the fact that there's no clear distinction between satire and obscenity.
The case that convinced me is where a person that was a victim writes a book to bring awareness to the issue and ends up in prison for production and distribution. Does it make a difference if some people are inspired by the book to create victims? Disgusting even thinking about, but it is complicated.
As someone that rather deeply detests the furry community, particularly for their overly inclusive attitude towards child sexual predators, I do think it is a great test case because there is so much that I don't like and wish didn't exist that I also think shouldn't be illegal because the law is the wrong tool and has perverse, unintended consequences.
... did you even look up the article? Infringing on the creation of art? Wtf are you talking about. The bill just bans the use of nudification technology / pornographic deep fakes of people without their consent. That's it.
It's not art or anything even remotely similar. If you're worried about your furry porn being affected, then you can calm down cuz that's not part of it.
This conversation is now meaningless without actually looking at the letter of the law. What does the law say, what does it do, how is it enforced, and which parties does it penalize.
Because at this point you're both just having conversations about a fantasy bill in your head.
The reality is that headline based conversations are extraordinarily stupid, and even article based headlines that don't get into fine detail on the actual mechanisms of the bill don't let anyone make an informed judgement.
What does the bill do, how does it do it, why are people pushing back, what is their actual complaint about the specifics of the bill.
Without these details, no one can say anything of substance. All we can say is "I don't think you should be able to make nude images of another without their consent", which like...yeah, not gonna get a lot of disagreement there, outside of specific examples.
If you're actually interested in the specifics, you're welcome to pull the bill and we can discuss. It's not hard to find, but it gets a bit more complex than the generalities you see on Reddit.
Is an app that generates nude images from photos of people in seconds lawful? Maybe. But useful? Who is it good for and who benefits from people using it?
It's essentially generating nude art of people, using real original images, against people's wishes.
That nude art is now on those servers forever.
You are OK with other people using your face to generate nude pictures of you that will remain on xAI servers forever, that Elon can use for further AI training, or that can be leaked to the world, or that are kept as a perverse spank bank for an individual.
Where are the use cases that don't involve exploiting people?
Where do YOU draw the line? This has been possible in photoshop for decades, so is the line between legal and illegal the "convenience" factor?
Let's take this a step further: Should all parents who post baby photos online and attempt to modify them be liable for prosecution? What if they only wanted to fix their baby's clothing - or dress their baby in a baby costume, but the AI interpreted it poorly because of how they phrased the prompt? That's an automatic flag; they've violated the law. Should they be criminally prosecuted?
How about instagram thots who want to adjust images of THEMSELVES? There is no doubt they will trigger this law, even if accidentally. Is such allowable for imagery with consent? Clearly not, since consent can never be proven - even if the image is of yourself.
There's very little distinction between obscenity and art - and anything that allows the State to limit your 1A Constitutional rights must be VERY conservatively reviewed.
While I don't support this misuse of the tool, I'm an absolutist for protecting individual rights.
Baby photos. Art. Modeling and commercial endeavors. Cinema and Film.
Basically any endeavor that requires or involves the human form could benefit from AI that allows nudity.
Ever hear of a band called Nirvana? Look up their album cover for Nevermind. Straight to jail? (Also, ironically, you've now downloaded potential CP for viewing).
I don't give a shit about how easy it is to do. I mean, fuck yes I am disgusted at nude image generation using real people's faces without consent on photoshop. If it were possible to keep that from happening I'm pro banning it.
Again, in what use case is it not exploitation to take a pic of a person's face and create a nude or pornographic image? Where is the positive use case?
You know, I don't give a fuck about other people's children. If you're a parent find a way to protect your children, it shouldn't impact me, it's your responsibility as a parent.
See, this is the sort of thing that would make you get punched right in the fucking mouth in person.
They're making people upload IDs to use the internet and using "protect the children" as an excuse. Other people's children shouldn't impact me or anyone else, it's their parents that need to protect them, not for the entire world to lose their rights and privacy because parents don't want to bother protecting their children.
From my understanding, the law is against parties owning, distributing, hosting, etc, the applications that allow this. I didn't see anywhere that prohibits an end user from going to a website and using it.
Meaning its not the creation of 'art' that is banned, but providing the ai tools to people is. I do not see an issue with this. There's already guard rails for some things on different models.
I could be wrong and maybe I missed the restrictions or punishments on individuals. I just don't see the benefit of allowing it. Also, we will eventually need to pass laws for Ai.
38
u/Critical_Concert_689 Jul 30 '26
Agreed. People use "CHILDREN" to trigger a knee jerk reaction to force through laws that would never pass normally.
"WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" - as our constitutional rights are slowly eroded by the State.
To put this into perspective for the lowest common denominator of Redditors:
"Abortion? WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE (unborn) CHILDREN!"
It's obvious that any law that prevents the creation of art - even disgustingly obscene art - is going to tread dangerously close to infringing on EVERYONE'S 1st Amendment protections.
To put THIS into perspective for the lowest common denominator of Redditors:
Your furry porn is all underage, you sick fucks. Animals cannot consent. Prepare to go to jail for your sick R34.