They're not pictures of real people, proceeding against it on that basis undermines the point and makes them look like idiots. It should be banned on principle but ffs there's got to be a way that doesn't look reactionary and foolish.

Isn't AI generated better than content sourced from real life? It could actually drive a reduction in child sexual abuse instances due to offenders leveraging alternative sources.

In the United States, there are significantly greater dangers to kids than AI porn. Hunger, poverty and the climate crisis come to mind.

If we are refusing to address these for ideological reasons (e.g. because its socialism ) then the established system itself is a threat to kids.

Priorities.

Pandora's digital box has been opened. And I dont think this one ends with everything going back in the box.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

On Wednesday, American attorneys general from all 50 states and four territories sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers to establish an expert commission to study how generative AI can be used to exploit children through child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

In particular, open source image synthesis technologies such as Stable Diffusion allow the creation of AI-generated pornography with ease, and a large community has formed around tools and add-ons that enhance this ability.

Since these AI models are openly available and often run locally, there are sometimes no guardrails preventing someone from creating sexualized images of children, and that has rung alarm bells among the nation's top prosecutors.

Establishing a proper balance between the necessity of protecting children from exploitation and not unduly hamstringing a rapidly unfolding tech field (or impinging on individual rights) may be difficult in practice, which is likely why the attorneys general recommend the creation of a commission to study any potential regulation.

In the past, some well-intentioned battles against CSAM in technology have included controversial side effects, opening doors for potential overreach that could affect the privacy and rights of law-abiding people.

Similarly, the letter's authors use a dramatic call to action to convey the depth of their concern: "We are engaged in a race against time to protect the children of our country from the dangers of AI.

The original article contains 960 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 77%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

I'm sure it is entirely coincidental that the call to action is to restrict/control the free open-source software, and leaves Google and Microsoft safely in control with their curated models.

This is just like the time the US made websites responsible for their users' content, and coincidentally made it much more legally dangerous to start your own social media platform.

But sure, I mean, just think of the (imaginary) children! We need to stop this theoretical abuse of imaginary children by passing laws that make it harder for any AI not created by a tech giant to operate.