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 a single thread.
I think the last two paragraphs in the body of this post are the real issue here, not that he was just using AI to create CSAM.
Right? Feels like this is being tacked on as a shot at AI. Otherwise nobody is harmed except the guy. Pedos are ick, but if harmless then why punish? I don't think anyone should have to take a fall because others think their desires are gross.
Because they are using images of real children.
I agree, but if there were some way to create CSAM without using real children (I'm not sure how you would train such an AI model), it would probably be worth seeing if that did anything to make pedophiles less likely to act out on their desires.
Because my god, we need to figure out something.
I mean trying to help them get treatment instead of going all pod-people on anyone showing even the possibility of being attracted to kids would be helpful.
I've been saying that for ages. Obviously we don't want to enable any pedophiles to do anything horrific to children, but we're at a state right now where if you have those urges to begin with, you're basically already told to accept that you're an incurable monster. So why not act on the urges?
Somehow we need to get through to such people that they need to get help before they do anything terrible. I'm not sure how to do that in the current climate though.
The way AI models work, you don't have to train it on the thing you want it to do, you can ask it to combine the things it knows about. Take any of the meme loras for example, like pepe punch or patcha.
So literally any model that can generate pictures of naked adults and clothed children - which is to say almost all of them - is going to be at least somewhat competent in creating CP unless those prompts are being actively censored and blocked.
Wouldn't that generate images of children with small-sized adult bodies?
If it doesn't know what a child's body looks like, it can't just figure it out.
The datasets will have enough images of kids in bikinis and underwear from stock photos and clothes shop listings etc to figure that part out rather easily.
Train it to depict humans that look like anime characters that are
definitely 18 or olderimmortal dragons that are taking on the bodies of young human beingsDisclaimer
I am not condoning, endorsing, or suggesting this
actually, how about not looking into state-sponsored CP
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
"it would probably be worth seeing if that did anything to make pedophiles less likely to act out on their desires."
What's the implication here? You're saying we should look into placating child predators by creating AI CP for them to consume?
That would be worth a scientific study, don't you think? Isn't it worth trying to find ways to stop child predators before they become predators?
You seem to think I'm suggesting that the UK government create childporn.gov.uk or something.
Which means?
Its a form of stalking, probably makes it more likely for them to rape that child, even if they don't wind up doing that it would still qualify as a form of revenge porn.
It's not stalking and "probably" shouldn't rouse a courtroom.
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.
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?
Oh I didn't realize I needed to be a lawyer.
I can buy photos of Robert Downey Junior from Marvel Studios and that's not stalking.
I think this was a crime because he modified images of actual kids. If the images were 100% AI (not of real people) I'm not sure on what basis that would be considered a crime, no more than a handmade drawing of a nude minor drawn from imagination.
Any sexual representation of a child is illegal in the UK whether it looks real or not. In fact I believe it doesn't need to even be a child, it's a illegal if a reasonable person would believe it was depicting a child. This came up when adults who were into age play got into trouble distributing their images because it looked convincingly underage.
Wait so even if the subjects are adults in costume its illegal? Fuck man, school uniforms is a whole genre of porn.
Relevant part of Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (UK)
Section 65 (regarding what "child" means in the context of indecent images)
(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.
(end quote)
In other words, an image can be treated as an indecent image of a child if the "impression conveyed" is that the person is under 18, even if that person has older "physical characteristics".
This legislation is more directed at non photographic imagery (so hentai / CGI etc) and the reference to physical characteristics is apparently a reference to a large breasts or "1000 year old vampire teeth" not being viable as an excuse that the image doesn't give the impression of a child.
I can't recall specifically what legislation was used regarding the age play couple I referenced. I can't find a specific law that says it's wrong for a photograph of an adult to appear underage. So it may just be that they were reported to police because they shared their images online without context. I don't know if they were subsequently prosecuted.
It's not about reducing harm to children, it's about moral superiority.
And I suppose we can rely on the courts to know sexual when they see it, so people don't get in trouble for taking pictures of cherubs at the Louvre.
Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know that. Seems like a bit of an overreach to me, but I suppose in this particular case it's best to err on the side of caution.
Ah now it makes sense.
In the US federally you might be able to get away with creating the images for yourself if they are 100% fictional, but the guy also was doing commission work. The moment you start transmitting the images (and selling would involve that) it becomes very very illegal.
I don't really think anything is 100% AI. I also don't really believe in the concept of thought being a crime and extend personally kept data to that realm.
The fuck? Nothing about generating and distributing CSAM material is harmless, and especially if images of real children are being used to generate it.
Okay. Who is harmed and how?
Would it harm you to have identifiable nude photos of you available for download on the internet?
Would it harm you to have identifiable nude photos of you being used to train AI so that it can create more nude images that are "inspired" by your nude images?
Would you be happy to upload your children's nude photos so that people on the internet can share them and masturbate to them? Would you be harmed if your parents had done that with your images?
Most AI generated images are not of real, identifiable people. I agree that deepfake porn is bad, whether of a child or adult, but that's a separate category.
You're definitely right, and I'm aware. The smaller the sample size, though, the more likely an AI art generator would create something that looks very similar to a given individual.
As well, some AI art generators accept prompt images to use as a starting point.
Ok but that's a pretty niche thing to be worried about, is my point. You can't apply that broadly to all AI porn.
Not so much when it comes to prompt images.
As a child? No. In fact, I can milk that for pity money. As an adult, I can't see how it matters. I don't like it, but it doesn't hurt me any.
Also definitely no.
Again, double no.
To clarify, the second last question about your children was "would you be happy to ..."
If you wouldn't be happy to, then why not?
And if you would be happy to do that, then why? Lol
You got me there. It's definitely weird and gross and therefore no. That's harm enough, but that's more a matter of it being published and real. This dude doing it for himself is hardly different to me from fantasizing in your head or drawing in your sketchbook. That said, what was his AI training material? He's also doing this for other people and encouraging rape and shit.
What makes it different than imagining it or drawing it is that the AI is using real photos as training material. If the parents are knowingly providing images, that's questionable. If the AI is discovering CSAM images, that's horrible. If it's using non-CSAM images of children without the knowing consent of the parents, that's pretty bad too.
How is AI using real photos any different from a person using their real memory?
Because the AI publishes what it creates based on those images. The AI also doesn't have imagination the way that a person does. It could accidentally create CSAM material with a child that looks exactly like someone's child. And it can generate images that look like photos. Someone sketching something from memory can't do that.
There's the fact that the images he was creating were pictures of real kids. Deep fake porn is already creepy enough, add in that it was csam....
Yeah, that changes it a bit - that definitely has more of a creep factor. I still question if it's really the kind of thing that should land you in jail for a long time.