Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Erophysia t1_j7t2w8o wrote

Reply to comment by Mementoroid in I asked Microsoft's 'new Bing' to write me a cover letter for a job. It refused, saying this would be 'unethical' and 'unfair to other applicants.' by TopHatSasquatch

Serious philosophical question here, if no "harm" is brought to any children, what objection is there to this sort of material? It may invoke disgust, but what action does it warrant?

5

Mementoroid t1_j7w4oyt wrote

The exploitation of children in any form, including through AI-generated imagery, is illegal and morally reprehensible - because it is illegal even when illustrated. Creating or distributing material that sexually exploits children, whether it's real or simulated, contributes to a harmful and dangerous environment for children. Instead, a society focused on improving exponentially should focus on more rational ways to solve what seems to be an actual epidemy of paraphilia that is now being wavered around as an actual sexual orientation.

Also, the argument that "if no harm is brought to any children, what objection is there to this sort of material?" overlooks the fact that even the mere creation and distribution of such material perpetuates a culture that dehumanizes and commodifies children. This can have a damaging effect on children's wellbeing, as well as on society as a whole. This has happened with the normalization of certain sexual media already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU5qEW-9MZk

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12D43.pdf

Pornography already causes negative behavioural patterns on people. AI imagery is already thrilling and exciting for many - even addictive. When it starts to become better, and more accesible and easier to customize - the access to that content will be highly more widespread inevitably.

What action does it warrant? That, I am not sure. But I am also not sure that the majority of people seek "unhinged unfiltered AI" for noble purposes towards a better society (And we're supposed to look forwards to AI that benefits humanity. A better society is part of that.)

1

Erophysia t1_j7wam1k wrote

>- because it is illegal even when illustrated.

I thought SCOTUS ruled otherwise.

As for your other arguments, they seem to be condemning pornography in general since any genre of porn can be argued to dehumanize and commodify any demographic in question, especially women, but any demographic really. So just so we are clear, are you arguing for the outright banning of pornographic material? For that matter, how is porn defined and measured? Current federal law classifies porn as being images of buttocks, genitalia, or a woman's breasts. Naked baby pictures could technically be qualified as porn by this definition, as can photographs taken for an anatomy textbook.

Where do we draw the line?

Edit: The device you're typing on was no-doubt produced, in part, by child slave labor overseas. It would seem this contributes far more to the exploitation of children than AI-generated images.

2