A problem that I see getting brought up is that generated AI images makes it harder to notice photos of actual victims, making it harder to locate and save them
And doesn't the AI learn from real images?
It does learn from real images, but it doesn't need real images of what it's generating to produce related content.
As in, a network trained with no exposure to children is unlikely to be able to easily produce quality depictions of children. Without training on nudity, it's unlikely to produce good results there as well.
However, if it knows both concepts it can combine them readily enough, similar to how you know the concept of "bicycle" and that of "Neptune" and can readily enough imagine "Neptune riding an old fashioned bicycle around the sun while flaunting it's tophat".
Under the hood, this type of AI is effectively a very sophisticated "error correction" system. It changes pixels in the image to try to "fix it" to matching the prompt, usually starting from a smear of random colors (static noise).
That's how it's able to combine different concepts from a wide range of images to create things it's never seen.
Basically if I want to create ...
(I'll use a different example for obvious reasons, but I'm sure you could apply it to the topic)
... "an image of a miniature denium airjet with Taylor Swift's face on the side of it", the AI generators can despite no such thing existing in the training data.
It may take multiple attempts and effort with the text prompt to get exactly what you're looking for, but you could eventually get a convincing image.
AI takes loads of preexisting data on airplanes, T.Swift, and denium to combine it all into something new.
True, but by their very nature their generations tend to create anonymous identities, and the sheer amount of them would make it harder for investigators to detect pictures of real, human victims (which can also include indicators of crime location.
Well that, and the idea of cathartic relief is increasingly being dispelled. Behaviour once thought to act as a pressure relief for harmful impulsive behaviour is more than likely just a pattern of escalation.
Source? From what I’ve heard, recent studies are showing the opposite.
Catharsis theory predicts that venting anger should
get rid of it and should therefore reduce subsequent
aggression. The present findings, as well as previous
findings, directly contradict catharsis theory (e.g.,
Bushman et al., 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). For reduc-
ing anger and aggression, the worst possible advice to
give people is to tell them to imagine their provocateur’s
face on a pillow or punching bag as they wallop it, yet this
is precisely what many pop psychologists advise people to
do. If followed, such advice will only make people
angrier and more aggressive.
But there's a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.
Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?
your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior...
it uses the term "arousal", which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.
provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.
Lol, my source is about the cathartic hypothesis. So your theory is that it doesn't work with anger, but does work for sexual deviancy?
Do you have a source that supports that?
you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.
your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.
otherwise you've just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic...
but is not relevant to the topic at hand.
The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by "releasing" aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "
follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.
That's not a claim I make, it's a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.
Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.
but is also entirely off-topic...
No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.
and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.
your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.
i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.
so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;
or B: the theory isn't wrong after all.
you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)
so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be wrong irrelevant.
or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.
you can't have it both ways, but you're sure trying to.
understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.
My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.
but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)
When did I claim it was ever correct?
I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.
I don't claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.
Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?
then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.
You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I've already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?
The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.
Let's see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?
Sorry bud, I know who I'm going with on this and it ain't your academic.
Let's see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?
Your therapist is still utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis?
Well, if age is a factor in your opinion about the validity of the care you receive, I have some bad news for you.....
You're still using 5,000 year old Armenian shoes?
Of course not. Stop being reductive.
Lol, you were the one who first dismissed evidence because it was 20 years old.....
The point is you can reduce anything to its origin. That does not mean it's still the same thing.
The point is you can reduce anything to its origin.
Okay, but how does the modern version of cathartic theory differ from what freud postulated?
I agree you can't reduce things based on its original alone , which is why I included a scientific source as evidence......
I don't know, that's why I have a therapist, I'm not educated in psychology. But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.
But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.
I doubt that, so far your argument has been based on the anecdotal fallacy mixed with a bit of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Lmao. Says the guy who tried to use a study on aggression to address sexual urges.
A problem that I see getting brought up is that generated AI images makes it harder to notice photos of actual victims, making it harder to locate and save them
And doesn't the AI learn from real images?
It does learn from real images, but it doesn't need real images of what it's generating to produce related content.
As in, a network trained with no exposure to children is unlikely to be able to easily produce quality depictions of children. Without training on nudity, it's unlikely to produce good results there as well.
However, if it knows both concepts it can combine them readily enough, similar to how you know the concept of "bicycle" and that of "Neptune" and can readily enough imagine "Neptune riding an old fashioned bicycle around the sun while flaunting it's tophat".
Under the hood, this type of AI is effectively a very sophisticated "error correction" system. It changes pixels in the image to try to "fix it" to matching the prompt, usually starting from a smear of random colors (static noise).
That's how it's able to combine different concepts from a wide range of images to create things it's never seen.
Basically if I want to create ... (I'll use a different example for obvious reasons, but I'm sure you could apply it to the topic)
... "an image of a miniature denium airjet with Taylor Swift's face on the side of it", the AI generators can despite no such thing existing in the training data. It may take multiple attempts and effort with the text prompt to get exactly what you're looking for, but you could eventually get a convincing image.
AI takes loads of preexisting data on airplanes, T.Swift, and denium to combine it all into something new.
True, but by their very nature their generations tend to create anonymous identities, and the sheer amount of them would make it harder for investigators to detect pictures of real, human victims (which can also include indicators of crime location.
Well that, and the idea of cathartic relief is increasingly being dispelled. Behaviour once thought to act as a pressure relief for harmful impulsive behaviour is more than likely just a pattern of escalation.
Source? From what I’ve heard, recent studies are showing the opposite.
Source
But there's a lot more studies who have essentially said the same thing. The cathartic hypothesis is mainly a byproduct of the Freudian era of psychology, where hypothesis mainly just sounded good to someone on too much cocaine.
Do you have a source of studies showing the opposite?
your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior...
it uses the term "arousal", which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.
provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.
Lol, my source is about the cathartic hypothesis. So your theory is that it doesn't work with anger, but does work for sexual deviancy?
Do you have a source that supports that?
you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.
your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that's a pretty big claim! i'd like to see a source that supports that claim.
otherwise you've just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic...
The belief that indulging in AI created child porn relieves the sexual deviant behaviour of being attracted to actual minors utilizes the cathartic theory. The cathartic theory is typically understood to relate to an array of emotions, not just anger. "Further, the catharsis hypothesis maintains that aggressive or sexual urges are relieved by "releasing" aggressive or sexual energy, usually through action or fantasy. "
That's not a claim I make, it's a claim that cathartic theory states. As I said the cathartic hypothesis is a byproduct of Freudian psychology, which has largely been debunked.
Your issue is with the theory in and of itself, which my claim is already stating to be problematic.
No, you are just conflating colloquial understanding of catharsis with the psychological theory.
and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.
your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.
i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn't seem to hold up.
so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;
or B: the theory isn't wrong after all.
you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it's convenient to you, that is)
so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be
wrongirrelevant.or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.
you can't have it both ways, but you're sure trying to.
My original claim was that cathartic theory in and of itself is not founded on evidence based research.
When did I claim it was ever correct?
I think you are misconstruing my original claim with the claims made by the cathartic theory itself.
I don't claim that cathartic theory is beneficial in any way, you are the one claiming that Cathartic theory is correct for sexual aggression, but not for violence.
Do you have a source that claims cathartic theory is beneficial for satiation deviant sexual impulses?
You are wanting me to provide an evidence based claim between the two when I've already said the overarching theory is not based on evidence?
The primary principle to establish is the theory of cathartic relief, not wether it works for one emotion or the other. You have not provided any evidence to support that claim, I have provided evidence that disputes it.
Let's see here, listen to my therapist who has decades of real experience or a study from over 20 years ago?
Sorry bud, I know who I'm going with on this and it ain't your academic.
Your therapist is still utilizing Freudian psychoanalysis?
Well, if age is a factor in your opinion about the validity of the care you receive, I have some bad news for you.....
You're still using 5,000 year old Armenian shoes?
Of course not. Stop being reductive.
Lol, you were the one who first dismissed evidence because it was 20 years old.....
The point is you can reduce anything to its origin. That does not mean it's still the same thing.
Okay, but how does the modern version of cathartic theory differ from what freud postulated?
I agree you can't reduce things based on its original alone , which is why I included a scientific source as evidence......
I don't know, that's why I have a therapist, I'm not educated in psychology. But I do recognize a logical fallacy when I see one.
I doubt that, so far your argument has been based on the anecdotal fallacy mixed with a bit of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Lmao. Says the guy who tried to use a study on aggression to address sexual urges.
Yes, but I'm too lazy to sauce everything again. If it's not in my saved comments someone else will have to.
E: couldn't find it on my reddit either. I have too many saved comments lol.