I'm saying it can't combine clothed children and naked adults to make naked children. It doesn't know what "naked" means. It can't imagine what something might look like. It can only make naked children if it has been trained on them directly.

Nobody was talking about the "legality". We are talking about morals. And morally there is major difference.

The only “charitable” take I can give this is that he’s been fighting Apple and Google over store fees and the like and that he feels like if he says that Apple/Google can do this then they should be able to restrict EGS as well. I don’t know why CSAM AI material is the hill you’d make this point with though.

Incorrect.

'This too is a crime, but it's a different crime.' *'Why are you defending this?'* Wrong.

Threats are a crime, but they're a different crime than the act itself. Everyone piling on understands that it's kinda fuckin' important to distinguish this crime, specifically, because it's the worst thing imaginable. They just also want to use the same word for shit that did not happen. Both things can be super fucking illegal - but they will never be the same thing.

It's big fucking news when those datasets contain, like, three JPEGs. Because even one such JPEG is an event where the FBI shows up and blasts the entire hard drive into shrapnel. Y'all insisting there's gotta be some clearly-labeled archive with a shitload of the most illegal images imaginable, in order for the robot that combines concepts to combine the concept of "child" and the concept of "naked," are not taking yourselves seriously. You're just shuffling cards to bolster a kneejerk feeling.

And nor should it.

True enough - but fortunately, there's approximately zero such images readily-available on public websites, for obvious reasons. There certainly is not some well-labeled training set on par with all the images of Shrek.

Show me where anyone said that. Circle it in red.

If you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by

How often do I have to say *this is still a crime* before y'all stop having a different argument inside your heads?

This is almost as sus as the the specific preferred age range terminology for pedophiles that comes up now and again in the most uncomfortable of scenarios

Do you understand that's a different thing than telling me you've fucked her?

Are you honestly asking me why child molestation is worse than rendering an image? This term was already developed to distinguish evidence of criminal events. I should fucking hope everyone here understands why preventing or punishing such events is a leading goal, but apparently that's asking too much, if y'all really do not believe there's a difference between pasting someone's head onto a magazine centerfold... versus sexually assaulting them. I am fucking bewildered by this lack of consensus on the topic of *child rape.* Really thought it was a gimme, for everyone to go, yeah, this thing over here is bad, but obviously it's not as bad as *child rape.* Didn't expect to fire up the computer and have Lemmings sincerely ask me, why are crimes that happened worse than crimes that didn't?

Zionazi oligarchist supremacism controlling media/speech promoting hate and genocide is reason to zero out his finances and media control. That bipartisan establishment loves all of this, means this performative whining over image generation tools that can be used to fake offense, is the permitted pathethic discourse establishment masquerades as democracy.

I'm no fan of banning this or that particular platform (it's like trying to get rid of cheeseburgers by banning McDonalds; the burgers are still available from all the other burger chains and all the people who use the one will just switch to others) but this is a hilariously wrong way to get to the right answer.

> I really don’t like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime I'm sorry to break it to you, but this has been illegal for a long time and it doesn't need to have anything to do with CSAM. For instance, drawing certain copyrighted material in certain contexts can be illegal. To go even further, numbers and maths can be illegal in the right circumstances. For instance, it may be illegal where you live to break the encryption of a certain file, depending on the file and encryption in question (e.g. DRM on copyrighted material). "Breaking the encryption of a file" essentially translates to "doing maths on a number" when you boil it down. That's how you can end up with the concept of [illegal numbers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number).

It helps that Tim Sweeney seems to always be wrong about everything.

Depictions could somehow be twice as illegal as the real event, and they still wouldn't be the same thing. It literally did not take place.