Oh noes, it's AI VR porn! Run for the hills!

[FoxEye]

BBC News on as background noise again.

Was a story about VR porn (with "AI" liberally tossed in by reporter for good measure). Glanced around and it looks like Second Life vs The Sims, with a silly VR thing strapped to your noggin (hope it's an easy-clean model).

BBC said that a lot of the "avatars" were under-18. Well yeah, I imagine some of them were literally created yesterday.

Interesting to hear that as well as the word "illegal", the BBC + police were also talking about tech's responsibility to prevent access to "immoral" computer-generated VR porn. Because morals can now be policed? I guess it works well in Iran.

So what does GD think? Should BBC/cops be worried about VR/Second Life and people making risqué models in Blender or whatever? And should imaginary "children" have the same protections as real ones? Frankly, if you can fap to The Sims whilst wearing a brick on your head, you probably deserve some kind of medal.

I imagine Tory MPs everywhere will be sweating about this one for quite some time, whilst pretending they have no idea how that VR headset in their cupboard got there.

Also, lol at BBC covering tech. AI is going to eat us all, apparently.

 

[FoxEye]

Yeah, I think so. It was background noise and I didn't catch the beginning of the story. Started watching when they were showing stuff that looked like The Sims or Second Life.

It should be noted that in the UK, imaginary kids have the same protection as real kids. That means that various Japanese publications ("hentai" for those who aren't familiar) are just as illegal as actual images of abuse (the latter having real victims, but the former not).

But it also means that you have the problem of identifying when a cartoon drawing (or 3D model) is under 18? I mean, how bizarre is that?

The "shocking images" they showed on TV were just like The Sims. Honestly, my mind boggles that that can be illegal. It's clearly not real (anything), and it's kind of weird to classify such images as "children". To me it looked like a game from the early 2000s.

But that's just me. I think if you blur the line between what's real and what's imaginary, then why just do that for sex related stuff?

Why not make killing an imaginary person in GTA illegal?

 

[FoxEye]

Yes that doesn't sit well with me, and I don't like legal porn of any type either, but I don't have a problem with people generating porn themselves if it's legal. It's balancing between child safeguarding, even if no real children is invovled, and an Orwellian state.

Yeah that part I can't really comprehend. How can you safeguard an imaginary child?

 

[FoxEye]

That was the first thing that came to my mind when i saw the story, a lot of anime/hentai really skates the boundaries of CP. Some weeaboos and otakus won't be happy about this!

One of those things that are clearly wrong, but difficult to really police/outlaw. How do you identify the age of an animated character? The 'may lead to escalation' line also doesn't seem like something you should be arresting someone for, but should those individuals be monitored? My uninformed opinion says banning this stuff is a form of safeguarding, but then that goes back to the escalation line. Surely the pros of banning it outweigh the cons?

Governments haven't even got to grips with regulating and managing tech companies and the internet, its hard to imagine stuff like this and AI in general will be tackled any time soon.

The "slippery slope" argument is commonly used. But there are problems with it..

Either you say that the thing being done now is as bad as the thing that it may lead to. In this case that asserts that imaginary children are the same as real children, which I personally find hard to justify.

Alternatively, you are saying you must prosecute something that isn't as bad, with a sentence that reflects the severity of the thing it *might* lead to.

Either way, it's getting into prosecuting either future crime, or thought crime.

I'm firmly in the camp that the real and the imaginary are utterly different, and in the realm of the imaginary, anything goes. e: with the caveat that it has to be 100% imaginary, and not simply a manipulation of something taken from real life/real people.

I'm also in the camp that distasteful things shouldn't be illegal - only harmful things.

The slippery slope argument - in this case - is also an assertion that people can't distinguish between the real and the imaginary. For someone who grew up with video games, and was running over Hare Krishnas almost before he could say "mama!", I find that simply unfair.

 

[FoxEye]

I think the reason why they tried to prosecute that is because they use the gateway principle. That it will lead to normalising images of, mainly, young girls being sexualized, and that will lead to more real life settings as that is generally how porn works for many people.

The gateway theory is part of the reason real images are banned, as well as it encouraging a market for its production.

I think fictional images are illegal in some countries.

There's absolutely no evidence that the gateway theory holds any water. It's often repeated, but it's not proven.

Personally, I don't find any link between fantasy and reality. What happens in our imaginations is often totally beyond the realms of anything we'd act out in real life. Who hasn't had a daydream about killing someone? Honestly? I think we've probably all daydreamed about killing someone. Perhaps brutally. Holy crap, we should all be in jail for this thought crime? "It's a slippery slope..."

For the sake of argument, there are some (with whom I don't necessarily agree, btw) who say that such cartoons might prevent some paedos from attacking real children.

Most anime characters all look underage, and that seems to be acceptable?

Nope, in the UK they're technically illegal. The criteria is that a "reasonable person" could think they were under 18.

Take your average catgirl. In most fantasy universes, they age like cats and not humans. So an 18 y.o. catgirl is geriatric

The whole thing gets more absurd, because the law as it stands does not limit "being a child" to being a) real or b) human.

It is always illegal if a "reasonable person" takes a look at it and says, "they're probably under 181". A drawing of sentient anthropomorphised plant could make you a sex offender

e: 18, 81, same difference

 

[FoxEye]

Yeah isn't this what that Japanese porn stuff is, oddly people on here seem to like it. Wtf

Implying you don't know all the artists on a first-name basis

 

[FoxEye]

No it isn't.

Everyone is free to imagine whatever debauched filth they like within the confines of their own head.

Act that out or otherwise realise it in the material world, then you're in trouble, and has been thus for a very long time.

It's no less fantasy if it's imagined in your head or drawn on a piece of paper from something that originated in your head.

Sketching something doesn't make it real (to state the obvious).

 

[FoxEye]

We're talking about what is illegal (well, you were). Nothing has changed here. Nobody is stopped from having whatever thoughts they want to have.

When you materialise that imagery in the real world, doesn't matter if it's a pencil sketch, wood-carving, or a digital image, then it very much is real and you can be held responsible for producing it.

So if I draw a unicorn then unicorns are real? Or an orc?

I know the drawing is real. But the drawing is no more manifesting a real situation or event than had it remained in the artist's head.

This is the problem. If imagining something cannot be a crime, then drawing the thing you imagined cannot be a crime, as the two are exactly as significant in terms of harm being caused (ie, none).

If depicting an imaginary situation on paper is to be a crime, then depicting the same imaginary situation in your head should also be the same crime. Or neither should be.

 

[FoxEye]

There’s a difference between healthily seeking entertainment and unhealthily avoiding reality in a persistent manner.

Is GTA healthy entertainment? Is running down a line of Hare Krishnas with a yellow school bus, then causing a mass pile up before murdering a dozen police officers?

That is absolutely fine in a video game.

Ironically, the only time GTA got in trouble was for a bit of (imaginary) nudity. Remember "Hot Coffee?" Lol.

 

[FoxEye]

The frequency of engagement, the ‘need to engage’ and the overall impact on a persons behaviour of a specific activity may determine how unhealthy something is.

It is very obvious to me that activities that are inherently addictive (i.e. those that involve desire followed by satiation - such as sexual fantasising) have more scope to impact a persons overall behaviour and wellbeing than overindulging in watching TV box sets… but of course any behaviour taken to extremes may be harmful to some individuals.

That could apply to numerous other things that aren't illegal. Over-eating. Smoking. Binge-watching Netflix. Over-sleeping. Obsessing over hobbies.

None of those things are criminal as we generally don't punish unhealthy behaviour via the legal system. We tend to punish harmful behaviour, and even then not self-harm. Generally speaking, breaking the law requires that you harm others (or intend/attempt to).

Making it illegal to draw an underage orc having sex with a unicorn in the vacuum of space (it's OK as they have a magic space suit on so they can breath) - who does that protect from harm?

That's my question. This law that already exists... whom does it protect?

 

[FoxEye]

You go draw some CP, take it to a police station and then try telling a judge that it cannot be a crime, see how you get on eh?

You make it sound simple. It isn't. For one, is it CP in the first place?

Example: it's well known that in Orc society there are no laws of consent. Orcs age and develop differently from humans. They become sexually active at age 5 (a bit later than catgirls).

You draw a 10 year old orc having sex with her trusty unicorn just floating past one of Jupiter's moons.

You are now sex offender?

The law exists, true. Some of us think it's a stupid law.

 

[FoxEye]

It protects you from yourself and in turn protects others from you.

There is a comic amusement / entertainment in video games from doing the absurd that doesn’t readily or obviously translate to carrying out the same desires in real life. I find that quite easy to say.

Can the same easily be said of the sort of imagery that you’re alluding to (i.e. there is a material disconnect between the material and the inherent wants)? Nobody is looking at that to experience the comic fun of the absurd. They are doing it because it’s arousing to them and that imagery is in turn encouraging them to fantasise and find it arousing.

You’re right though - it is ultimately a case of morality policing. There is no way for me to convincingly argue that it isn’t. Indeed, society simply values the protection of children very highly. If the line has to be drawn somewhere, or nowhere at all (for anything), then that seems a reasonable place to draw it

"It protects you from yourself and in turn protects others from you."

Can you elaborate upon that?

Is a person looking at an image (from the imagination) a threat to someone else, and if so, how?

Without using the "slippery slope" argument. The act of viewing this material - with nobody else in the room - is a threat to which other person, and how, and why?

Using as an example the image of the orc and the unicorn, in space.