A South Korean man has been sentenced to jail for using artificial intelligence to generate exploitative images of children, the first case of its kind in the country as courts around the world encounter the use of new technologies in creating abusive sexual content.
I’d go more in the direction of state sponsored generation and controlled access.
If you want legal unlimited access to AI generated CSM, you need to register with the state for it and in so doing also close off access to positions that would put you in situations where you’d be more able to act on it (i.e. employment in schools, child hospitals, church youth leadership, etc).
If doing that, and no children are harmed in the production of the AI generated CSM, then you have a license to view and possess (but not redistribute) the images registered with the system.
But if you don’t have that license (i.e. didn’t register as sexually interested in children) and possess them, or are found to be distributing them, then you face the full force of the law.
I think this idea rests on the false premise that people both need and have a right to pornography.
Many adults go about their lives without accessing it/getting off on it. It’s not a human need like food or shelter. So government isn’t going to become a supplier. Parallels could be made, I suppose, with safe injecting rooms and methadone clinics etc - but that’s a medical/health service that protects both the individual and the community. I don’t think the same argument could be made for a government sponsored porn bank.
You don’t think there’s an argument to be made that motivating people sexually attracted to children to self-report that attraction to the state in order to be monitored and kept away from children would have a social good?
I guess I just don’t really see eye to eye with you on that then.
This is such a touchy subject I find it difficult to articulate what society actually needs. We need a system where PEDOPHILES are able to receive the mental health they need before they become MOLESTERS.
But any time you say something about helping someone who is attracted to children the knee jerk reaction is always like “kill them. What you don’t want them dead? Are YOU a pedophile?” And I end up unable to convince them that helping them to not molest children by treating their mental health condition will actually help children not be molested. I really feel like this reactionary public opinion is causing people to go underground and is actually causing more children to be harmed.
There’s a world of difference between socially inappropriate desires that someone might be born with and can’t help and inappropriate behaviors that they chose to do.
By all means demonize the latter. But demonizing the former along with it does mean a likely increase in the latter by forcing a social climate where being open and transparent about the former to avoid the latter is far less common.
People suck even dealing with people being alcoholics or drug addicts and giving them the space and situational consideration to avoid temptation.
All that said, IIRC the numbers are something like 50% of people with a sexual attraction to children will have acted on it by college, so it’s understandable that the animosity for the former is often not far distanced from the latter.
But I’m all for any social programs that provide support for helping the other 50% avoid going down that path.
It’s impossible to talk about any kind of numbers or statistics regarding sexually attraction to minors. It all gets muddled up really fast. A lot of men normalize underage attraction to teenagers, but don’t consider it pedophilia (legally it is). Which brings up the question of classifying attraction, but in public speech this of course brings in the knee jerks reaction of questioning and attacking the person for knowing or addressing that there’s a qualitative different between attraction to a 5 year old and a 17 year old. But it does make statistics really hard to define.
Plus most of the information we have comes from felons and convicted criminals which are the worst or most extreme examples. Non-molesters pedophiles have absolutely no incentive to tell anyone, not even their psychologists, which means we don’t know anything from them. A few researchers try to get into their world and derive some understanding, but it is always a hard sell for grants. But a friend researcher once told me, if we could only interview felons, we would be convinced that most people will murder someone before turning 30. The truth is we don’t know, and we currently have no way of knowing the real numbers regarding pedophilia.
And the psychiatric definition is attraction to pre-pubescent children.
And the statistics aren’t actually as hard to define as you might think, though the amount of research this topic gets is woefully underrepresented relative to the social impact.
For example, on the topic of violent offenders in prison you bought up:
Of the 100 male inmates who participated in this study, 59% reported experiencing some form of sexual abuse before puberty, and all such instances occurred before or at the age of 13 years.
Read your sources again. I’m not sure the are saying what you think they are saying. It says they were the victims (emphasis not dismissal) of sexual abuse before puberty. Not the perpetrators. Again, it’s scientifically disingenuous to extrapolate an observation of a extreme bias population like incarcerated inmates to the whole population. This is why academic research is full of disclaimers and qualifiers.
I’d go more in the direction of state sponsored generation and controlled access.
If you want legal unlimited access to AI generated CSM, you need to register with the state for it and in so doing also close off access to positions that would put you in situations where you’d be more able to act on it (i.e. employment in schools, child hospitals, church youth leadership, etc).
If doing that, and no children are harmed in the production of the AI generated CSM, then you have a license to view and possess (but not redistribute) the images registered with the system.
But if you don’t have that license (i.e. didn’t register as sexually interested in children) and possess them, or are found to be distributing them, then you face the full force of the law.
I think this idea rests on the false premise that people both need and have a right to pornography.
Many adults go about their lives without accessing it/getting off on it. It’s not a human need like food or shelter. So government isn’t going to become a supplier. Parallels could be made, I suppose, with safe injecting rooms and methadone clinics etc - but that’s a medical/health service that protects both the individual and the community. I don’t think the same argument could be made for a government sponsored porn bank.
You don’t think there’s an argument to be made that motivating people sexually attracted to children to self-report that attraction to the state in order to be monitored and kept away from children would have a social good?
I guess I just don’t really see eye to eye with you on that then.
This is such a touchy subject I find it difficult to articulate what society actually needs. We need a system where PEDOPHILES are able to receive the mental health they need before they become MOLESTERS.
But any time you say something about helping someone who is attracted to children the knee jerk reaction is always like “kill them. What you don’t want them dead? Are YOU a pedophile?” And I end up unable to convince them that helping them to not molest children by treating their mental health condition will actually help children not be molested. I really feel like this reactionary public opinion is causing people to go underground and is actually causing more children to be harmed.
Agreed.
There’s a world of difference between socially inappropriate desires that someone might be born with and can’t help and inappropriate behaviors that they chose to do.
By all means demonize the latter. But demonizing the former along with it does mean a likely increase in the latter by forcing a social climate where being open and transparent about the former to avoid the latter is far less common.
People suck even dealing with people being alcoholics or drug addicts and giving them the space and situational consideration to avoid temptation.
All that said, IIRC the numbers are something like 50% of people with a sexual attraction to children will have acted on it by college, so it’s understandable that the animosity for the former is often not far distanced from the latter.
But I’m all for any social programs that provide support for helping the other 50% avoid going down that path.
It’s impossible to talk about any kind of numbers or statistics regarding sexually attraction to minors. It all gets muddled up really fast. A lot of men normalize underage attraction to teenagers, but don’t consider it pedophilia (legally it is). Which brings up the question of classifying attraction, but in public speech this of course brings in the knee jerks reaction of questioning and attacking the person for knowing or addressing that there’s a qualitative different between attraction to a 5 year old and a 17 year old. But it does make statistics really hard to define.
Plus most of the information we have comes from felons and convicted criminals which are the worst or most extreme examples. Non-molesters pedophiles have absolutely no incentive to tell anyone, not even their psychologists, which means we don’t know anything from them. A few researchers try to get into their world and derive some understanding, but it is always a hard sell for grants. But a friend researcher once told me, if we could only interview felons, we would be convinced that most people will murder someone before turning 30. The truth is we don’t know, and we currently have no way of knowing the real numbers regarding pedophilia.
‘Pedophilia’ has no legal definition.
And the psychiatric definition is attraction to pre-pubescent children.
And the statistics aren’t actually as hard to define as you might think, though the amount of research this topic gets is woefully underrepresented relative to the social impact.
For example, on the topic of violent offenders in prison you bought up:
This issue has a much bigger and broader impact on society than most people realize.
Read your sources again. I’m not sure the are saying what you think they are saying. It says they were the victims (emphasis not dismissal) of sexual abuse before puberty. Not the perpetrators. Again, it’s scientifically disingenuous to extrapolate an observation of a extreme bias population like incarcerated inmates to the whole population. This is why academic research is full of disclaimers and qualifiers.
Yes, that’s exactly what I thought it was saying and my point, and there’s similar numbers in other studies.
That component I don’t have an issue with at all, actually. But providing government sanctioned ai porn? Unlikely