• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 28th, 2026

help-circle





  • WDYM why not drugs? Strong alcohol and tobacco were a state monopoly in many countries for many years, and still are that kind of business heavily intertwined with state.

    And prohibited drugs are in a similar position, just the state monopoly is unofficial. Well, officially they are prohibited. As I said. OK.

    There are plenty of different kinds of drugs with different degrees of addiction, lethality, damage to the environment in production too.

    Anyway, about AI - were it not profitable, it wouldn’t be rolling. It might be a bubble, but it’s, for the users of this kind of technology, a qualitative change from precise algorithms and industrial optimization to fuzzy decisions based on statistics. Basically machines following human orders as humans mean them. Well, kinda like that, except very computationally expensive and as good as your dataset, but there are tasks hard to do the old way and easy to do the new way. Hence (on Jingle Bells melody) bombing swarms, bombing swarms, bombing all the way. I suppose not all the way, but the essence is here. Also surveillance, detecting and stopping people harmful for some political end without ever alarming them or anyone or using direct visible force, predicting events.

    It’s inefficient when used for the same tasks a shell script can do. It starts being efficient when used on the scale of lives and families and groups and communities, and armies and economies. Matter of scale.



  • Plus, it’s disgusting and should be illegal anywhere that it isn’t just in general. It’s weird that you’re defending it like it’s diet coke or something.

    “It’s disgusting” is not quite the right argument for making something illegal.

    And that “you’re defending” presupposition should honestly be your last claim in any group of people before being shown the door.

    You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.

    Quoting myself.

    I “honestly think” each case is unique. Just like with everything else.

    CP is harmful due to normalizing the thing, useful due to redirecting some of the energy people with that pathology have away from, you know, real children.



  • it’s essentially iterating on known images

    No. It’s iterating on the common traits of known images compressed plus lots of randomization.

    If you trained a Stable Diffusion model on only pictures of Rwandan people, and asked for an image of “a man sitting on a chair” the man will look vaguely Rwandan.

    If you train a model on adult pornography and non-pornography with children and adults alike, it might be capable of generating plausible child pornography.

    When you train an AI on CSAM, it produces images that are based on CSAM. Real people were victims in the base material, too. Close e-fuckin’-nough. Real people’s victimization is literally the core of how those images are made.

    I’ve just told you how this is not true.

    You seem to have that “all or nothing” mindset in an argument, as if you really didn’t like someone, then they should be prosecuted as a rapist, a murderer and an arsonist at the same time. Exaggerating, of course.

    Point being that child pornography without real victims is something not contested here and has its own implications. You are trying to argue on something out of reach.