doesn’t it follow that AI-generated CSAM can only be generated if the AI has been trained on CSAM?
This article even explicitely says as much.
My question is: why aren’t OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Anthropic… sued for possession of CSAM? It’s clearly in their training datasets.
First of all, it’s by definition not CSAM if it’s AI generated. It’s simulated CSAM - no people were harmed doing it. That happened when the training data was created.
However it’s not necessary that such content even exists in the training data. Just like ChatGPT can generate sentences it has never seen before, image generators can also generate pictures it has not seen before. Ofcourse the results will be more accurate if that’s what it has been trained on but it’s not strictly necessary. It just takes a skilled person to write the prompt.
My understanding is that the simulated CSAM content you’re talking about has been made by people running their software locally and having provided the training data themselves.
Tell that to the judge. People caught with machine-made imagery go to the slammer just as much as those caught with the real McCoy.
Have there been cases like that already?
It’s not legal advice I’m giving here.