Remix clone Hacker News

> Legally if it's asserted that these images are criminal because they are the result of being the product of an LLM trained on sources that contained CSAM then the requirement would be to prove that assertion.

Legally, possession of CSAM is against the law because there is an assumption that possession proves contribution to market demand, with an understanding that demand incentives production of supply, meaning there that with demand children will be harmed again to produce more content to satisfy the demand. In other words, the intent is to stop future harm. This is why people have been prosecuted for things like suggestive cartoons that have no real-life events behind them. It is not illegal on the grounds of past events. The actual abuse is illegal on its own standing.

The provenance of the imagery is irrelevant. What you need to prove is that your desire to have such imagery won't stimulate yourself or others to create new content with real people. If you could somehow prove that LLM content will satisfy all future thirst, problem solved! That would be world changing.

▲

harshreality 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm somewhat sympathetic to that argument. However, it doesn't stop there.

Violent video games prove contribution to market demand for FPS-style videos of mass shootings or carjackings, so can/should we ban Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto now?

(Note that the "market demand" argument is subtly different from the argument that the games directly cause people to become more violent, either in general or by encouraging specific copycat violence. Studies on [lack of] direct violence causation are weak and disputed.)

▲

9rx 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Tell us more about the market that is carrying out mass shootings/carjackings with intent to sell the imagery of it. This is the first I've heard of it. In fact, when mass shootings do occur they are usually explained away for some other reason (e.g. a troubled teen who went off the rails), not that it is the day-to-day operation of a videography business.

	▲	harshreality an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They don't have to sell imagery, or intend for it to be publicized, for it to have the effect of driving demand for such imagery. The link between consumption (without purchase) of CSAM and increased production of CSAM is assumed in the same way, isn't it? The motives and situational dynamics of pedophiles filming child pornography, and gangs robbing or carjacking people on video in broad daylight, may be different in some ways, but in some ways they're not: both get direct benefit from the crime, regardless of the recordings; in both cases some (small) subset of people interested in watching the recordings may become more inclined to act out what they see, if it aligns with an already existing inclination toward pedophilia or violent crime. That's independent of whether they can make money or become famous for the crime, although money or infamy as additional motive is an additional problem.