Also, lets test your commitment to consistency on this matter. In most jurisdictions possession and creation of CSAM is a strict liability crime, so do you support prosecuting whatever journalist demonstrated this capability to the maximum extent of the law? Or are you only in favor of protecting children when it happens to advance other priorities of yours?
I did not see the details of what happened, but if someone did in fact take a photo of a real child they had no connection to and caused the images to be created, then yes, they should be investigated, and if the prosecutor thinks they can get a conviction they should be charged.
That is just what the law says today (AIUI), and is consistent with how it has been applied.
What if Photoshop is provided as a web service? This is analogous to running image generation as a service. In both cases provider takes input from the user (in one case textual description, on the other case sequence of mouse events) and generates and image with an automated process, without specific human intentional input from the provider.
Note that in this case using them for producing CSAM was against terms of service, so the business was tricked to produce CSAM.
And there are other automated services that could be used for CSAM generation, for example automated photo booths. Should their operator be held liable if someone use them to produce CSAM?
I anticipate there will already be case law/prescident showing the shape of what is allowed/forbidden, and most of us won't know the legal jargon necessary to understand the answer.
Or answers, plural, because laws vary by jurisdiction.
Most of us here are likely to be worse at painting such boundaries than an LLM. LLMs can pass at least one of the bar exams, most of us probably cannot.
There's no such report in this article.
The law disagrees - at least in UK. CSAM is illegal regardless of tool used.
> I did not see the details of what happened, but if someone did in fact take a photo of a real child they had no connection to and caused the images to be created
The article makes no report that happened. And it does report that is prohibited by the tool in question. But it does then quote a child safety advocate saying tools should not be allowed to "generate this material", so is misleading in the extreme.
I doubt anyone will go to jail over this. What (I think) should happen is state or federal law enforcement need to make it very clear to Xai (and the others) that this is unacceptable, and that if it keep happening, and you are not showing that you are fixing it (even if that means some degradation in the capability of the system/service), then you will be charged.
One of the strengths of the western legal system that I think is under appreciated by people here is that it is subject to interpretation. Law is not Code. This makes it flexible to deal with new situations, and this is (IME) always accompanied by at least a small amount of discretion in enforcement. And in the end, the laws and how they are interpreted and enforced are subject to democratic forces.
