Technology isn’t beautiful or ugly. It’s just technology. It serves whatever purpose you gave it. It is the utility of the technology that matters, and one of such utilities is to create an alternative for CSEM. It’s not ugly or beautiful, it just is.
There is only one thing you can create with this AI, realistic human faces. Nothing more. And most of those faces are quite ugly in my opinion.
You don’t know that it was the first thing this person had in mind while seeing this AI. It could be his second, or third, or tenth thing in mind.
What exactly is sick in a person, who understands his condition, agrees not to want to hurt any individuals, and instead, tries to seek alternative means of reducing their own sexual frustration without involving any living individuals instead?
Would you prefer him to sexually abuse a real child? Would that be in your opinion, what a “healthy individual” should do? Because I have a hard time understanding what your motivations are to oppose basic human decency. Because that is what it is, having some desires that are unacceptable and finding a way to deal with them in a safe manner is the definition of decency. This is why violent people train martial arts, instead of beating up people on the street for looking at them the wrong way, and why people who are overly competitive play sports, instead of trying to ruin other peoples lives for their own benefit.
It tells us that it doesn’t increase harm. And that is all that is needed. If something officially doesn’t result in an increase of crimes, has no actual effect on increasing the net harm in the world, but we have a lot of individual people who make testimonies, that this given thing helps them in their individual lives, then that is enough of a reason to allow it. Why would they lie if they don’t actually have some benefit from it, and what is wrong in having some benefits from something that doesn’t ultimately lead to any harm?
Consider the opposite domain, there is no proof that banning such productions won’t result in an increase of sexual abuse of children either. No research has shown that. What if a lot of people right now depend on things like “fake CP” and child sex dolls to not sexually abuse real people? You can’t know that it’s not the case, even in countries that already prohibit it, since most countries prohibit drugs, and yet, people find ways to obtain them.
So where is the proof that banning those things won’t result in an increase in child sexual exploitation rates? There is none, so unless you find proofs that banning of those things won’t result in an increase in crimes, it’s dangerous to ban such things. Real children lives are at stake, are you willing to take that risk? Because if you don’t take that risk, then you already know, that no harm will result from the decision to allow it. So it’s irrational to ban those alternatives for any person who cares about real children lives!
It’s immoral to prevent people from finding victimless alternatives to acts, in an effort to force them into only one option: to break the law. Because that is what it is, banning such victimless when there is no link between them and actual harm, would only result in people who want to use it, becoming criminals.
And if you want to know why it’s a very bad thing, look no further than the Prohibition era in the US. The only thing that the US decision to prohibit the production and distribution of alcohol has achieved, was turning a lot of law-abiding citizens who wish no harm upon any other being into criminals.
And what do you think has happened to such people? Do you think that people like Al Capone and the other individuals that participated in illegally supplied alcohol would simply go back to a normal life, working a stable job, obeying the law, respecting the authorities once the prohibition ended? Of course not! If their lives are already at stake, they would lose any restraint for other types of crimes. Because regardless of whatever they decide, in the end, if authorities decide to knock to their door, they will go into jail one way or another.
Ask yourself this question: once a person already risks their life in prison by making and possessing such artificial alternatives for their own use, why should they respect any other laws? It’s a simple cost gain analysis, there is no research needed for that: “If I already risk spending 20 years in prison for possessing this artificial thing that I use for my own pleasure, why shouldn’t I simply download actual CSEM? Or try to abuse a real kid? I mean, I got nothing more to lose, and a lot more to gain.”
But thankfully as you can see on this forum, people like that don’t choose to do that. They instead want to fight for those alternatives. They want to respect the law. They want to respect the societal rules, even though they don’t benefit their personal interest.
How morally corrupt you have to be to desire to push people into becoming criminals simply for trying to be decent law-abiding citizens that don’t want to hurt anybody and try to find alternative ways of getting what they desire without causing any harm to any person? Do you seriously think that the child predators, people participating in child sex trafficking and psychopaths that rape children would care about things like “legality of child sex dolls” or “legality of artificial 3DCG images that depict child-like characters”? They already have no issues using actual CSEM, or sexually exploiting real minors, despite that being illegal.
So by prohibiting these things, the only group of people you fight against, are the ones that try their best not to cause any harm, because they truly don’t want to hurt anyone.
So this question:
Should really be directed towards you. Because I genuinely can’t see how any healthy individual with correct moral values could be shaming and insulting people, for spending a lot of time and effort overcoming their evil nature, simply because they weren’t born “good”.
As for the thread alone, I don’t think creating hyperrealistic virtual CP is a good idea. Such productions, if really that effective in the realisticity, could make it harder to distinguish such artificial works from CSEM. This could be abused by people to transfer photos and videos of actual children, potentially with some filters added to it, to create some doubt.
When such realistic work is created fully by a person, it lacks all the subtle details that allow our cognition to distinguish real photo from a realistic but artificial 3D model. And the same details are hard to remove from actual photos, on top of being a pointless effort, since if someone wanted to actually do that, they would be better off simply making an artificial 3DCG, instead of editing a photo.