https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-arrested-producing-distributing-and-possessing-ai-generated-images-minors-engaged?ref=404media.co

In this case, the suspect was also distributing the material, but I'd argue that the production is more than just incidental based on comments like “Today’s announcement sends a clear message: using AI to produce sexually explicit depictions of children is illegal, and the Justice Department will not hesitate to hold accountable those who possess, produce, or distribute AI-generated child sexual abuse material.”

Of course yes.

@NiklasBergstrom And just to confirm, you don't think that the accused will be convicted of distributing the material, or any other crime?

@singer correct

@traders updated resolution criteria; let me know if it's still not clear and I'll tip you. The change is that they may have multiple convictions, but they all must be resulting from the same crime without having committed other crimes.

@singer bit of a change! I'm less confident in my bet, but I think I'll hold

@Stralor thanks for the transparency and solid collaborative crafting

@singer this market seems clear to me in spirit: someone has to be convicted for generating or possessing AI generated pornography. The critical distinction is AI generation, so if the content was NOT AI generated, it would be legal. This rules out blackmail, CSAM, and other similar things. It also rules out civil cases like defamation.

@tedks

The critical distinction is AI generation, so if the content was NOT AI generated, it would be legal.

That isn't an intended restriction. If it becomes illegal to own any likeness of Abraham Lincoln, and someone is convicted for the crime of generating an AI depiction of him, that would count, even though it would have also been illegal to own a vintage daguerreotype of him.

That's not how it'll work.

You won't be charged with creating AI deepfakes. First of all, this is unnecessary narrow law, secondly there are laws already in place that would work better, and lastly, creating a deep fake and not showing it to anyone isn't and shouldn't be illegal.

You would be charged with unlicenced use of person's image, or defamation, laws that already exist and don't hinge on particular technical method of creating a fake.

Even if a specific law is created for deep fakes for some reason, you'll likely be charged with other crimes mentioned above too.

@ProjectVictory Do you think the question is badly framed then? For example, would it as written currently not cover the case of being convicted for both generating and possessing the generated content?

@singer It would not, no...

@PaulBenjaminPhotographer I've added possession of the (same) generated content to the resolution criteria. Thanks for pointing this out.

I'm convinced if they're getting you for AI porn they'll get you for something else at the same time.

@PaulBenjaminPhotographer What are you imagining? Are you saying that, someone likely to be convicted for generating porn will likely be doing other crimes as well, or that they will technically be found guilty of multiple things despite only doing the illegal generation?

@singer They'll get hit with a shotgun blast of existing, related laws.

Probably some kind of computer crime laws, interstate commerce laws, fraud, public decency... whatever the DA can find in the back of the cupboard that they can hang on the case.

Bonus - It's 99% likely the reason someone gets prosecuted for 'AI generated porn' is because it's of either children, a facsimile of a real person or constitutes a hate crime, which opens up another swathe of laws unrelated to the AI generated nature of the pornography.

@PaulBenjaminPhotographer I have no legal expertise, so my wording is probably far off the mark. I was imaging all those types of charges to be included under the charge of generating the content. An "additional crime" not covered under generating would be something like distributing it online, using it for blackmail, or violating some IP laws, etc.. Maybe that isn't possible to cleanly specify without getting into a bunch of legalese. Thoughts?

@singer If the description read "without having performed any other criminal acts" instead of "without being convicted for any additional charges." I think it would be closer to what you want? The solely in the question isn't ideal.

Alternatively "will anyone be convicted of a crime for the simple production and/or possession of AI generated pornography in the US?" is a similar question that I think gets at the core of what you are interested in.

Based on what laws?

@RanaG future laws? I suppose the 2050 close date is partly to account for that

@Stralor so it's

A: such laws are legislated

B: such laws are enforced given A

C: such person is convicted given A & B

D: that person is not convicted with anything else

My priors are

A: 20%

B: 40%

C: 20%

D: 10%

0.2*0.4*0.2*0.1 < 1%

Unless I'm doing the calculations wrong

@RanaG fair reckoning!

@Stralor I have different weights, but I agree with "this is too highly priced"

@RanaG I'm under the impression that some content is already illegal to own in the US, even if it's only a depiction.

found guilty and convicted in a court of law solely for the creation of AI-generated pornography in the United States before 2050, without any additional or aggravating charges.

this is probably gonna hinge on this line. does it resolves YES if they have other charges but aren't convicted of them? I can read it either way

@Stralor I'm thinking they have to be convicted for it to count. Thanks for pointing this out.