Man who used AI to create child abuse images jailed for 18 years
Man who used AI to create child abuse images jailed for 18 years
Hugh Nelson, 27, from Bolton, jailed after transforming normal pictures of children into sexual abuse imagery
Hugh Nelson, 27, from Bolton, jailed after transforming normal pictures of children into sexual abuse imagery
A man who used AI to create child abuse images using photographs of real children has been sentenced to 18 years in prison.
In the first prosecution of its kind in the UK, Hugh Nelson, 27, from Bolton, was convicted of 16 child sexual abuse offences in August, after an investigation by Greater Manchester police (GMP).
Nelson had used Daz 3D, a computer programme with an AI function, to transform “normal” images of children into sexual abuse imagery, Greater Manchester police said. In some cases, paedophiles had commissioned the images, supplying photographs of children with whom they had contact in real life.
He was also found guilty of encouraging other offenders to commit rape.
You're viewing part of a thread.
It is when they are commissioning these "works".
Ed8t: To be clear, that's what happened here.
Commissioning as in buying? I'm not sure how that changes it to stalking.
IMO, the worst part about it is that there's someone else out there who thinks less of me because there's some naked imagery of me.
People will always find ways to think less about you.
For example, I think less of you because your comments support pedophilia.
Why should I care what someone likes so long as they keep it to themselves?
THEY AREN'T KEEPING IT TO THEMSELVES.
Holy shit, how are you defending this behavior still?
They find children they want, take pictures of them, send them to this "CSAM AI Artist" for lack of a better term, in order to have CSAM of the specific child they are interested in.
If you dont see that as dangerous, especially as the CSAM creator is encouraging these people to act on those specific children, well... Let me know so I can just block you and be done.
What the actual fuck.
Ohh, you're on about the specific guy in the article who went down primarily because of the other shit he's doing along with what you just said. If you scroll up enough, you'll see that I'm talking about hypotheticals. My whole stance is about personal data being ethically in the same category as personal thoughts. Nobody should be convicted for wrongthink regardless of whether it's bad taste or not. There's no important difference between pictures in your head and pictures you put on a screen.
Well, thanks for the confirmation that I should just block you, because the situation literally is about this guy and the people who targeted children, and you're just giving the old thumbs up because its "just thoughts about raping kids, real kids that they followed and took pictures of - but its cool! There is no way this leads to escalation and the rape of kids".
Got it..
You're the kind of loser who would convict someone over your feelings and call yourself the good guy.
Commissioning as in a buyer has an interest in a particular child. They ask the guy using ai to make a custom bit of CSAM, so the buyer can have CSAM of that specific child.
That kind of commissioning.
Okay, but if I ask someone to draw me a picture of Nicholas Cage naked, is that stalking him? What if I have Nick Cage pictures all over my walls and even ceiling and my phone wallpaper? Is that stalking? Does it help if I'm really horny for him? And I touch myself?
We aren't talking about a famous person.
We are talking about someone taking pictures of kids they know to have someone else turn it into CSAM.
The comparison you are trying to make is completely irrelevant. The fact that you see it as a comparison makes it even worse.
Do famous people have certain exemptions? Fewer rights?
You can definitely say that them going around trying to get the pictures to begin with is stalking though. I pretty well didn't consider that step and was focused on the AI bit.
The AI part is a continuation.
And this...
Do famous people have certain exemptions? Fewer rights?
Is completely irrelevant and ridiculous as a comment.
You are comparing a household name and likeness to a child that someone wants to sexually abuse, is near, and able to get pictures of.
Stop talking about celebrities and come on down to reality please.