Yeah…..the US gove will totally haha…..pffff ban pornography
b e a r d
@ehhh @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon they're probably talking about photorealistic AI images. where it's becoming harder and harder to tell if something is actually real or not.
@ehhh @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon sorry but to me it still sounds like they are mainly focused on the issue of AI generating stuff that looks like CSAM of children, *not* lolis. the line about being able to generate children whether or not they actually exist isn't in reference to whether or not they are drawn, but whether the child physically exists in the real world and is being deepfaked or the generated child doesn't exist and but is being pulled from a bunch of reference images of children that do exist.
it would be like feeding a stable diffusion model a bunch of CP and a bunch of photos of your neighbor's kid, then using AI to generate CP of that kid, VS just generating things that look like they could be real children but actually aren't.
i don't think this has anything to do with loli. i think the term "realistic animations" that they use is not related to loli whatsoever because A) loli isn't realistic and B) someone saying "animations" doesn't automatically mean they are referring to anime. it could be animated deepfakes they're talking about. they never mention anything about drawings, or cartoons, it's all talking about existing CP being made into models to then make AI generated CP.
i don't think it even mentions the word "art" anywhere
@ehhh @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon i think that the guy who wrote the article is just assuming they mean loli art for some reason and extrapolating but they never mention art at all in their letter, just realistic AI generated photos that look like they could be CP because the models are made with photos of real children.
@ehhh @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon not in context it doesn't.
Pic related would be likely be considered csam under their proposed standards
Saṁain Goat That's all well and good, but this is coming from the same people who ignore elite pedo prostitution rings involving their leaders. They don't give a shit about CP, much less actual child rape. That's just their excuse to try to restrict a branch of technology they're very afraid of and very much want to control.
@Eiregoat @WashedOutGundamPilot @ehhh @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon no shit the government is evil, i'm just making the point that this isn't some way they're going to censor loli or something, they're very specifically going after photorealistic AI generated CP. which is fair, considering the ethics of generating that are extremely dubious at best.
nichegamer here has blown a gasket over something that doesn't concern lolicons at all, and i'm willing to bet a good amount of people are just looking at the headline and assuming the worst. or perhaps even reading the article and not fully grasping or not reading the legal stuff, so they just look at what nichegamer is saying which is that it will be targeting AI ART and not just realistic AI CP, because there are real children involved in the making of it. it's bad journalism, and it rubs me the wrong way because it makes it seem like lolicons are all coming to the defense of AI CP.
the tweet, alongside using a loli character as a clickbait image (and gura of all characters, who isn't just some manga character but someone with an actual real-life person behind her), insinuates that they want to ban AI art of lolis, but that's just not the case at all. they're going after something that actually has real-life implications. it feels grimy to me.
I'm not a loli fan, but I know full well where it's heading. They'll create some new agency to regulate AI and it'll just happen to be primarily staffed by jews and spend most of their time "combatting hate speech."
Then in a few years time they'll apologise for their pedophobia and drop the anti loli regs. The agency will stay though.
@beardalaxy @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon
@Eiregoat @WashedOutGundamPilot @ehhh @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon and you can cry slippery slope all you want, but you do still have to draw the line somewhere. with real porn we draw the line at using actual children, and i think drawing that line at photorealistic AI generations is fine too.
@Eiregoat @WashedOutGundamPilot @ehhh @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon so what you're saying is that since the people who make and enforce laws don't obey them, the laws shouldn't exist? that's a really fuckin weird take if that's what you're going for, especially when it comes to borderline child porn.
This is no different from the patriot act, net neutrality or any other federal powergrab.
@Kyonko802 @Eiregoat @WashedOutGundamPilot @ehhh @SpurgAnon well WHEN that happens i will oppose it. child pornography and trafficking is illegal and the people who have power break those laws constantly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have those laws just because the people who enforce them are fucked up, or just because we think that it'll one day trickle down to anime being banned or something.
niggas arguing that AI CP shouldn't be illegal and thinking it has *anything* to do with loli is just really fucking weird, i'll leave it at that.
You see this nendo? Amazon just banned it for child exploitation.
You are a fucking fool if you think this shit is about actually getting rid of cp.
Tl;dr it's a bullet hell that was big in the arcades a while back (back when those games kept coming out) for a year or so to the point it got a sequel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEicZgv9iXw
Oh yeah if you look at what other games Australia banned many of the recent ones are cunny related but said country is a lot more lax about ultraviolence now. Really makes you think.
@PurpCat @beardalaxy @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon https://www.classification.gov.au/titles/deathsmiles-i-ii
LMAAAAA that is crazy dude
Games 1(b): The computer game is classified RC in accordance with the National Classification Code, Computer Games Table, 1. (b) as computer games that “describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not).“
🤣🤣🤣
-literally Australia
Any attempt by feds to create new laws and agencies should be first and foremost interpreted with an assumption that they will be primarily misused for other purposes. Children and terrorism are only ever an excuse.
The government posits something that no one would disagree with, and then use it for oppressing innocent people while not actually doing anything about the problem they supposedly seek to solve
@beardalaxy @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon
>be painter
>make loli painting that's photo realistic
>no references, purely from imagination
>10years and forced to register as a sex offender
Try again
tl;dr: kids needs safety online (internet is fake and gay nowadays) and better privacy laws, parents needs to wake up, don't trust your government, big tech needs to pay for allowing all for this.
It's an attack on A.I and (supposedly) on CSAM.
I don't trust them nor their fake sounding letter.'
but,
do I want to be the guy who sounds like defending CSAM?
@ehhh @WashedOutGundamPilot @Kyonko802 @SpurgAnon using gura as the clickbait image for this also really rubs me the wrong way