Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> meaning that sexual labor is sex obtained through coercion (there is a terser name for this)

In a world where all labor is slave labor, rape presumably isn't particularly frowned upon. If I'm going to accept your premise that basically everything I have in life is obtained through coercion, why would I object to obtaining sex that way?

> the things Aella likes to defend include things like AI generated CSAM, as well as trying to push the boundaries on what might be considered ethical ways to engage sexually with children

One of these is not like the other. People advocating for AI generated child pornography are generally doing so as a means of reducing the frequency of people actually having sex with children.

"AI generated CSAM" is an oxymoron FWIW, it's impossible to sexually abuse a child which does not exist.



This doesn't work. It instead creates normalization of the content and causes people with these fixations to obsess.


I'm not that deeply familiar on the topic, do you have any research to share on this?


'"AI generated CSAM" is an oxymoron FWIW, it's impossible to sexually abuse a child which does not exist.'

Would you agree that fictional stories about how blacks want to and commit rape and murder are fine?

Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?


>Would you agree that fictional stories about how blacks want to and commit rape and murder are fine?

"Fine" in what sense?

>Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?

Why would it not be OK? There is nobody being harmed.


Pick some sense you're comfortable with.

If I sneak a nude photo of you and use some "AI" to add a funny hat and then spread it, would you be OK with that?


>If I sneak a nude photo of you and use some "AI" to add a funny hat and then spread it, would you be OK with that?

How is this even vaguely related? I'm a real person, but we're presumably discussing people who do not exist.


And kids aren't?


No? That's the whole point.

The people advocating for AI generated child pornography are generally not advocating for AI generated child pornography portraying real children.


>portraying real children

Where do you think the training data came from, you pedophilic dolt? If you have kids and have posted their image online, some dude is cranking it to an image inspired by them, with your enthusiastic consent apparently. Bleak!


If you're specifically advocating for a CP-generating AI that allows you to generated pictures of specific people, that's on you man.


Right, so as long as the photo is manipulated you're OK with it being distributed.

Do you have kids?


>Right, so as long as the photo is manipulated you're OK with it being distributed.

Moving the goalposts from "AI-generated" to "manipulated" is just silly on your part.

>Do you have kids?

Yes.


No goalposts got moved.

A previous post asked: "Is it OK to 'grok' out simulated undressings of small children because the image technically no longer depict them and instead are fantasy?"

And then YOU answered with the following:

> Why would it not be OK? There is nobody being harmed.


And I'm sure no children will be exposed to this. You people are fucking sick.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: