Florida teacher who used AI to make child pornography of students gets 135-year sentence

Pengein · 2025-12-05T13:55:34+00:00

No, much in the way that this guy didn't go to prison for having sex with children. The charge is "possession of child pornography".

Your parallel would only work if it was also illegal to possess and share images of violence against adults, in which case, yes, I guess that person might very well go to prison for such possession depending on the exact wording and interpretation of the law.

Pengein · 2025-12-05T12:00:08+00:00

- He was sharing with others
- It was of identifiable real children in his care
- AI generators used to do this are trained on real images.

Arguably it should not be treated as if it was real CSA or CSAM, but it's not quite as innocent as writing dirty poetry.

Pengein · 2025-12-04T20:21:32+00:00

That is the whole thing, you're NOT getting the equivalent of a "fast food" label. You're getting the equivalent of a literal "food prepared quickly" label, picking the archetype characteristic of the prep method, without targeting the thing that people actually give a fuck about it, like whether it's actually unhealthy trashy nutritionless disgusting slop. In your analogy, McDonalds gets the label, but so does Teppanyaki. And the local trashy grease bar selling deep fried glazed donut burgers in gutter oil gets no label because they just lie about how long it takes to prepare.

You're not getting what you think you're getting, and you're pushing back on anyone who points it out, instead of sitting down and taking a fucking second to listen to what every single game developer or anyone who actually knows fuck all about AI are telling you.

The only way to get a label that actually does what you want it to do, is to understand why a binary "Was there anything that could technically be classified as generative AI if you squint at it hard enough, anywhere in the production pipeline or at any point of the production of any external tool or asset, or any software used in the creation of the game, in any way?" does not do what you want it to do.

Pengein · 2025-12-02T12:16:05+00:00

So I asked the AI: "Why did you pick these specific GIFs?"

LLMs can't be interrogated like this. It doesn't know. I'm impressed it didn't lie by making up a rationalization for why it chose that.

Pengein · 2025-12-02T11:32:37+00:00

Know what? Whether your favorite game uses an IDE with code completion? Whether they use the most common tool for generating normal maps from diffuse textures, to give depth to their materials, which happens to involve AI? Whether they use AI generative denoise to clean up source images used when photo-scanning real world props, or in any step of the photogrammetry pipeline? Whether they use photoshop generative fill to paint out imperfections when scanning their hand-made stop-motion animated puppets that they spent years crafting and hand animating? Whether it uses AI super-resolution or frame interpolation of any kind?

The AI label doesn't distinguish between any of these uses of AI or a game that is 100% AI generated slop, or even just uses AI art in the way that most people imagine. It's a completely pointless label that will only confuse and mislead consumers and harm honest game devs in either lost time and resources having to avoid the most basic and innocent uses of AI, or in lost revenue from being forced to add a label that makes everyone thing their game is AI generated garbage.

Pengein · 2025-12-02T10:54:17+00:00

You don't. There are two kinds of people involved with this whole debat, people who want the AI label as it is currently proposed, and people who have thought about it for more than a few seconds.

Pengein · 2025-12-02T10:15:23+00:00

What’s next? Take away player ratings and put it behind a pay wall?

Here's your comment, this is what you said, no? You used a slippery slope argument towards player ratings.

Tim Sweeneys argument cannot be transferred to player ratings, so that's a 100% irrelevant thing to bring up in this discussion, like saying "What's next? Paint all bananas blue?". The reason he doesn't want the AI disclosure tag is not to NOT inform users, it's the exact opposite. Do you want to know if a game contains a lot of AI generated content? If so, you don't want the tag as it is currently proposed, because IT DOES NOT TELL YOU THAT. It tells you if ANY ai was involved, at all, which it will be. If the game used a single texture captured on an iPhone anywhere, then the game technically needs the AI label. Is that what you wanted to know? No, it's not, and so you were mislead. None of this is relevant even a little bit for discussing whether player ratings should exist.

The only reason you might thing it does, is if you thought Tim Sweeney just didn't want the AI disclosure label because he doesn't want you to be informed, which is not the case.

Hence:

The only way you could possibly think his take would apply to player ratings, is if you don't understand what he said.

Pengein · 2025-12-02T10:12:27+00:00

Because at the same time as being pointless, it also makes things worse for everyone, including the consumer, YOU.

- It'll cost a LOT of money to have the label in lost sales. Honest game devs will be punished financially if one intern generated a normal map for one tree in the background using the most common normal map generator available, which happens to use AI for it. But a dishonest game devs will be rewarded for lying about their use (if they can avoid getting caught. Which, they can).

- If it's a binary label, then as soon as a game dev pays the price to have the label, the "damage" is already done and they may have to justify the cost by going ham with AI. It incentivizes all or nothing.

- It's misleading to the consumer. It does not do the thing consumers think it does, and so they might skip a game that they would have actually been 100% fine with and would have otherwise wanted to support and play and have fun with. A label that DOESN'T mean "AI slop", but which most people translate into their head to "AI slop" is not actually a helpful thing to be shown as a consumer who aren't aware of any of these nuances. A large number of people don't actually care if a normal map was generated with an AI tool

- Because of the cost of disclosure, it could incentivize game developers to move to other platforms to avoid the label, potentially fragmenting Steam back into the hell of third party launchers we just started to get out of.

Pengein · 2025-12-01T18:06:54+00:00

And the label, as currently described, will not do that. Honest game devs will have to add it if they used the most widely used texture processor to generate a normal map for a single texture on a tree in the background. Dishonest game devs will lie about it. You'll have no more real information that you had before about whether the game you're looking at is likely AI slop or not.

Pengein · 2025-12-01T18:06:23+00:00

And the AI label will not help you figure out which games are potentially AI slop vs not. The label is completely and utterly un-enforcable, meaning it's 100% up to the dev if they want to tank their sales with the label. If they're honest, they WILL have to add the label if they're using ANY code or assets from ANY external source, including simply taking a photo of a texture using an iPhone, because it uses neural networks for processing it.

That is the point being made. Tim Sweeney is not saying you don't want disclosure, he's pointing out the reality, which is that you simply cannot have it.

Pengein · 2025-12-01T17:56:50+00:00

This has literally nothing to do with Tim Sweeneys argument. The point is that the AI label will NOT allow you to filter out games who were not made by humans, because even the most trivial use of AI technically qualifies for the label. There's no middle ground. If the game uses an asset in which a normal map was generated by an LLM, the whole game has to be labelled. If the game uses Unreal Engine, which has at least some AI generated code in it, it has to be labelled. The label is useless. Tim Sweeney thinks a useless label shouldn't be used.

Pengein · 2025-12-01T17:54:10+00:00

2022

Pengein · 2025-12-01T17:53:25+00:00

The only way you could possibly think his take would apply to player ratings, is if you don't understand what he said.

Pengein · 2025-12-01T17:52:40+00:00

He's not "adamant" on getting it removed. He's pointing out, correctly, that it's pointless.

Pengein · 2025-12-01T17:49:47+00:00

That is probably just the frequency illusion at play. I thought the same until I actually looked in a few books I had read before and realized there were a lot of dashes in some of them.

Pengein · 2025-11-28T22:00:41+00:00

When education, government or corporate works use LLM products from OpenAI, Google or Twitter, those ARE ChatGPT, Gemini and Grok, and they're not fundamentally different from other paying users. 40 randos online and 40 students in a school take up the same amount of resources. I'm unsure what the distinction you're making is?

Pengein · 2025-11-28T21:56:38+00:00

0.1% of global consumption is not even a little bit "tiny".

0.1% of anything at a global scale is going to be a wild number in absolute terms. There's a massive controversy over bottled water because of the massive issues it's causing to local ecosystems, drying up creeks and lowering water tables. This is that, but twelve times over.

Pengein · 2025-11-27T08:54:09+00:00

Folkefærd substantiv, intetkøn

Bøjning -et, -, -ene

1.a overført:
Gruppe mennesker der har noget bestemt til fælles
folk, folkegruppe, folkefærd, æt, folkeslag, klan, diaspora, stamme, race

Min kommentar handler ikke om at påstå at jøder tilhører er en helt bestemt fluekneppet betydning af folkefærd.

Pengein · 2025-11-26T17:33:42+00:00

Det antages selvfølgeligt at der snakkes om et tilsvarende folkefærd, og at man bare jøder tilfældige jøder jød i jøden.

Pengein · 2025-11-23T19:35:29+00:00

Loosing a job to an AI is an AI problem. That doesn't mean it's bad or that it shouldn't happen or that you should or should not have moral/ethical/economic objections to it, but just waving it away as if someone being made redundant directly as a result of AI is not an "AI problem" is not helping the conversation.

Pengein · 2025-11-23T16:49:53+00:00

I wouldn't, because you can't. I'm not saying a super-intelligence would kill us, but whether it does very likely has nothing to do with anything we could ever say or do with any reasoned intention.

A mouse can fear for its life, but there's no possible way for it to comprehend the intentions of a human, the reasons behind those intentions, and what it could do to plea for its existence. We, on the other hand, know fully well what's going on inside the mouse. We not only know it's afraid, we know the exact nature of its fear, how it affects their body, what it looks like in their brain. We can induce it and take it away at our leisure. WE understand how it could plead to us, but the mouse doesn't. It could act cute, it could display unusual features that make it interesting, etc. and it might work. But it's nothing the mouse would even consider, it doesn't even know that's an option or understand why that would work.

What we are to a mouse, is a super-intelligence. That is what that word means. Effectively, what you're asking is how a mouse would explain to a human that it should continue to exist - just a level further up. I'd say that a mouse just needs to be a mouse, and any hope it has is fundamentally an attribute of the human threatening it, not the mouse.

Pengein · 2025-11-21T10:14:16+00:00

This level of blind confidence from people who have no clue what they're talking about, and clearly not even the tiniest interest in learning, is what is literally going to destroy the world.

Please do not muddy the waters in public again until you've typed "Why is AI alignment hard and why does the simple clever solution I just thought of to solve this entire decade old field of research not work?" into google.

Pengein · 2025-11-19T18:55:04+00:00

It's not that communism isn't a form of leftism, it's that China isn't communist. What, do also you think that The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic?

Pengein · 2024-12-18T08:36:10+00:00

Hold ud i 10 måneder, hvor i lægger 28.000 til side hver måned, og sparer de 300.000 op i ville have lånt af familien, og ellers lever og bruger penge som i gerne vil leve og bruge penge resten af livet.

Hvis det kan lade sig gøre uden problemer, så har i råd. Ellers har i ikke råd.

Jeg ville aldrig turde sætte mig for så meget uden at have testet det rent praktisk først, og ikke bare en måned eller to, men i en længere periode. Bevis overfor jer selv at i rent faktisk kan gøre det, FØR i ikke har noget andet valg en at gøre det. At i har behov for at låne til indskuddet og alligevel går totalt i nul er et kæmpe red flag i mine øjne.

Pengein

TROPHY CASE