A sex offender convicted of making more than 1,000 indecent images of children has been banned from using any “AI creating tools” for the next five years in the first known case of its kind.

Anthony Dover, 48, was ordered by a UK court “not to use, visit or access” artificial intelligence generation tools without the prior permission of police as a condition of a sexual harm prevention order imposed in February.

The ban prohibits him from using tools such as text-to-image generators, which can make lifelike pictures based on a written command, and “nudifying” websites used to make explicit “deepfakes”.

Dover, who was given a community order and £200 fine, has also been explicitly ordered not to use Stable Diffusion software, which has reportedly been exploited by paedophiles to create hyper-realistic child sexual abuse material, according to records from a sentencing hearing at Poole magistrates court.

  • Dran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m not going to say that csam in training sets isn’t a problem. However, even if you remove it, the model remains largely the same, and its capabilities remain functionally identical.

    • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      At that point it’s still using photos of children to generate csam even if you could somehow assure the model is 100% free of csam

      • Dran@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That would be true, it’d be pretty difficult to build a model without any pictures of children at all, and then try and describe to the model how to alter an adult to make a child. Is anyone asking for that though? To make it illegal to have regular pictures of children in these datasets?

        • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          No but it is a reason why generating csam should be illegal. You’re using data trained on pictures of real kids

          • Dran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’m not arguing whether or not it should be legal, I was just offering my first hand experience in regards to the capabilities of these local models since people seem to be confused as to how this actually works.

            • PotatoKat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Is anyone asking for that though? To make it illegal to have regular pictures of children in these datasets?

              I was responding to this part of your comment which directly refers to legality

              • Dran@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I guess I just misunderstood what you were arguing then. For posterity: I believe datasets containing children is fine, datasets containing csam is not, and the legality of generating csam should be left up to psychologists on whether or not it is a societal net benefit. Whichever way is better for children that exist is my vote.