A sex offender convicted of making more than 1,000 indecent images of children has been banned from using any “AI creating tools” for the next five years in the first known case of its kind.
Anthony Dover, 48, was ordered by a UK court “not to use, visit or access” artificial intelligence generation tools without the prior permission of police as a condition of a sexual harm prevention order imposed in February.
The ban prohibits him from using tools such as text-to-image generators, which can make lifelike pictures based on a written command, and “nudifying” websites used to make explicit “deepfakes”.
Dover, who was given a community order and £200 fine, has also been explicitly ordered not to use Stable Diffusion software, which has reportedly been exploited by paedophiles to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material, according to records from a sentencing hearing at Poole magistrates court.
For reference, the comment I made was improperly displayed, and I thought I replied to the wrong person. It said:
Hi, I’m a mathematician that’s been following the development of generative neural networks for about a decade or more.
You’re wrong. Your knowledge of the inner workings of these AI is accurate, but somehow you’ve reached an incorrect conclusion. I sometimes run a local instance of Stable Diffusion on my home PC, and it can make things that have never existed look totally unlike anything it’s ever seen, and yet match certain specifications in principle.
I don’t use it to generate porn, so I can’t speak to the difficulties in avoiding csam while doing so. Mostly I generate is paintings in the style of Van Gogh, and it does a remarkable job of doing so, even when I can’t get it to do what I want. For example: it generated a painting of him in profile wearing armor when I asked for a weapon. I don’t think Van Gogh ever painted himself in profile, and he certainly never did so in armor. And yet the model was capable of imagining what this human-like figure so closely associated with the artist style “Van Gogh” would look like in profile because it knew what humans tend to look like in profile, and it could conceptualize how the features would present themselves. I’m certain that an AI can imagine a convincing image of simulated csam without ever having seen it, because these models really are just that good at imagining new things.
Has your model seen humans in a profile view? Has it seen armor? Has it seen Van Gogh style paintings? If yes then it can create a combo of those things.
For CSAM it needs to know what porn looks like, what a child looks like and what a naked pubescent body looks like to create it. It didn’t make your van Gogh painting from nothing it had an idea of what those things were.
it can create a combo of those things
Yes, that’s my point. It didn’t need to be trained on a portrait of Van Gogh in profile; it had several portraits of Van Gogh, a bunch of faces in profile, and used them to create something new. In the exact same way, a network trained on photos of people that include nude adult bodies and children in innocent situations can feasibly create facsimiles of csam without ever having been trained on it.
Yea, specifically, the model shouldn’t have had access to a significant training set on naked prepubescent bodies - that’s been my main objection in this thread.
Except you can’t know that. CSAM has been found in training data already and as long as they pull from social media they will continue to be trained with more.
Are you paying attention? It didn’t need to be trained on a portrait of Van Gogh in profile; it had several portraits of Van Gogh, a bunch of faces in profile, and used them to create something new. In the exact same way, a network trained on photos of people that include nude adult bodies and children in innocent situations can feasibly create facsimiles of csam without ever having been trained on it.
