I’m feeling so frustrated - pseudo images
Notifications OFF
Hi everyone,
As some of you may know, I'm going through this for the second time. First was 7 years ago and he was sent to prison for 3 years, first offence, IIOC. 3 years ago he was arrested again. Same thing. However, this time the images are "pseudo", so not real. First time I went to court to the sentencing hearing and they described some of the images and the distress on some of the children's faces was evident and I'll never, ever get that out of my head. This time, I'm having a hard time getting my head around the fact that these images are made up. From what I've read, people who look at/ download these images rarely go on to offend in person. Obviously I can't say 100% but I'm as certain as I can be that my ex would never do anything in person. He's kind of weak, has always needed a kick up the backside to do anything and is still very much under his parents spell in his 50's! The courts seem to see the pseudo images in exactly the same way as the actual images. I think my ex would always have used pseudo images instead of actual images had they been available 7 years ago. He is aware of the harm that's caused to these children, we have 4. I'm not even sure what I'm saying or asking here. Just getting it off my chest I suppose. I'm so weary of it all and also the wait from arrest to where we are now has been 3 years. It's torture and I'm scared of the media. X
As some of you may know, I'm going through this for the second time. First was 7 years ago and he was sent to prison for 3 years, first offence, IIOC. 3 years ago he was arrested again. Same thing. However, this time the images are "pseudo", so not real. First time I went to court to the sentencing hearing and they described some of the images and the distress on some of the children's faces was evident and I'll never, ever get that out of my head. This time, I'm having a hard time getting my head around the fact that these images are made up. From what I've read, people who look at/ download these images rarely go on to offend in person. Obviously I can't say 100% but I'm as certain as I can be that my ex would never do anything in person. He's kind of weak, has always needed a kick up the backside to do anything and is still very much under his parents spell in his 50's! The courts seem to see the pseudo images in exactly the same way as the actual images. I think my ex would always have used pseudo images instead of actual images had they been available 7 years ago. He is aware of the harm that's caused to these children, we have 4. I'm not even sure what I'm saying or asking here. Just getting it off my chest I suppose. I'm so weary of it all and also the wait from arrest to where we are now has been 3 years. It's torture and I'm scared of the media. X
Were these AI generated? Because if so they are developed from real images put together to look real. It isn't normal for someone to want to look at iiocs, real or fake. It is deeply concerning. The fact he has sought IIOcs in the past just seems to me he is trying to still get his kicks. He is also higher risk of going back to real IIOC.
I just seen a report of a man who admitted to generating such images through ai to make money. Your person is likely getting these images who will exploit his interest.
NOt sure if and how Lucy faithful are addressing pseudo in their training modules, but worth him and you reading up on the dangers of his behaviour and to understand why the law sees pessudo as being as serious as the real thing
I just seen a report of a man who admitted to generating such images through ai to make money. Your person is likely getting these images who will exploit his interest.
NOt sure if and how Lucy faithful are addressing pseudo in their training modules, but worth him and you reading up on the dangers of his behaviour and to understand why the law sees pessudo as being as serious as the real thing
Wow Buckets, you know alot!
Buckets, I've just re read that article and I quote, "HN used a 3D character generator to turn ORDINARY, NON EXPLICIT pictures of children into child abuse images". So, you are incorrect, at least in the case reported on Sky News today and also, in fact, in my ex's case.
I understand it is distressing being wrapped into this horrible world of online offenders and the impact of the lives of those around them.
But how would you feel if your own photos were manipulated into sexual content without your permission? It's still a violation of those who images are used. And in a way a violation of children's innocence, even when the images are not based on an actual living child.
The reality is, the law sees such fake images as to be as damaging as the real thing.
But how would you feel if your own photos were manipulated into sexual content without your permission? It's still a violation of those who images are used. And in a way a violation of children's innocence, even when the images are not based on an actual living child.
The reality is, the law sees such fake images as to be as damaging as the real thing.
Just to broaden this out a bit. Not all 'pseudo images' are AI generated or even based on real, manipulated images. Pseudo images can also include cartoon style images, such as anime. They are still regarded as IIOC.
My ex also used AI images, as others have said they can be created from already iioc or regular everyday photos.
I unfortunately found the images, they are extremely real, I could not tell they were AI, neither could the arresting officers they were that real (and that graphic).
I also went forward and backwards with my thoughts that they were AI, I worried I had over reacted by reporting him, that the police would brush it off. He also downplayed it saying it was 'only' AI and he wouldn't touch a real child.
Unfortunately they recovered over 1k of AI and 2to3 real images. So I will always wonder if he was moving onto real images. (awaiting final cps charges/decision) .
Now though I am glad they are treated the same as real images, the fall out especially for us 2nd victims is just as bad and I feel if he felt the urge to look for AI it is the urge to look for iioc regardless. They need the same support/therapy/counselling as others to find the route cause to prevent it happening again.
This journey is a massive roller coaster, it's incredibly unfair at times. I've come to terms that it is not my responsibility to make the final judgement as it just rings extra stress (we all have enough to contend with on this journey and I focus on what I can control).
Happy to chat as I've not found anyone else who's cases have been AI. X
I unfortunately found the images, they are extremely real, I could not tell they were AI, neither could the arresting officers they were that real (and that graphic).
I also went forward and backwards with my thoughts that they were AI, I worried I had over reacted by reporting him, that the police would brush it off. He also downplayed it saying it was 'only' AI and he wouldn't touch a real child.
Unfortunately they recovered over 1k of AI and 2to3 real images. So I will always wonder if he was moving onto real images. (awaiting final cps charges/decision) .
Now though I am glad they are treated the same as real images, the fall out especially for us 2nd victims is just as bad and I feel if he felt the urge to look for AI it is the urge to look for iioc regardless. They need the same support/therapy/counselling as others to find the route cause to prevent it happening again.
This journey is a massive roller coaster, it's incredibly unfair at times. I've come to terms that it is not my responsibility to make the final judgement as it just rings extra stress (we all have enough to contend with on this journey and I focus on what I can control).
Happy to chat as I've not found anyone else who's cases have been AI. X
Buckets, you referred to the case on Sky News. That person did not use IIOC to create the images. Fact. I didn't say how I felt, so you can't tell me how I should feel. I've been through every single aspect of this, twice. I've lived it for 7 years. The point of my post was that there should be much more research into whether these images, real or not, are a gateway - every single time - to actual offending or not.
Next year will be my 7th year from when my person was arrested. So I too have been on this journey and looked into studies and learned of the various reasons why people seek IIOC and the various statistics.
Even hand drawn IIOCs have been considered as extremely problematic way before computer generated images becoming more common.
Yes more studies are needed, but there will always be proportion of those who create fake images that are at higher risk of going further with their offending.
It has always been hard to say for certain if an individual would go on to further offend, we don't have crystal balls or the technology to 'look inside their heads'. Hence why many of these laws on online offending are stern and designed to deter people from even considering looking and seeking images of children in a sexual manner.
My point still stands - such individuals are setting themselves up for higher risk to extend their offending. My person started looking at totally innocent images, normal porn etc then he got bored and wanted more. Testing the boundaries and in time completely lost sense of the damage he was causing. He has never claimed attraction to children, but as we can't look inside his head I have to acknowledge it is a possibility and this he is responsible for not getting caught up in seeking or finding IIOC or being alone with children.
Many claim smoking weed is a gateway drug for example. But we know that not everyone who smokes weed will go onto harder drugs. Humans don't work like that. The same principle, in my opinion, can go for those who look at IIOC (real or not). It is far better that such individuals are never exposed to anything like IIOC, as we can never second guess if it would develop further to the real world of direct or indirect harm to children.
Even hand drawn IIOCs have been considered as extremely problematic way before computer generated images becoming more common.
Yes more studies are needed, but there will always be proportion of those who create fake images that are at higher risk of going further with their offending.
It has always been hard to say for certain if an individual would go on to further offend, we don't have crystal balls or the technology to 'look inside their heads'. Hence why many of these laws on online offending are stern and designed to deter people from even considering looking and seeking images of children in a sexual manner.
My point still stands - such individuals are setting themselves up for higher risk to extend their offending. My person started looking at totally innocent images, normal porn etc then he got bored and wanted more. Testing the boundaries and in time completely lost sense of the damage he was causing. He has never claimed attraction to children, but as we can't look inside his head I have to acknowledge it is a possibility and this he is responsible for not getting caught up in seeking or finding IIOC or being alone with children.
Many claim smoking weed is a gateway drug for example. But we know that not everyone who smokes weed will go onto harder drugs. Humans don't work like that. The same principle, in my opinion, can go for those who look at IIOC (real or not). It is far better that such individuals are never exposed to anything like IIOC, as we can never second guess if it would develop further to the real world of direct or indirect harm to children.
I have to say that ai created images are so extremely real that it is very hard to tell that they are fake.
I use instagram and sometimes see ai images (nothing illegal) and can't tell they're not real.
This makes it extremely dangerous. It can be used against everyone: children, women, politicians....
I use instagram and sometimes see ai images (nothing illegal) and can't tell they're not real.
This makes it extremely dangerous. It can be used against everyone: children, women, politicians....
There is a slight difference between pseudo images and cartoons, such as anime or hentai images. A pseudo image is one that looks real. A cartoon would be classed as a 'prohibited' image, not a pseudo image and cartoons are charged under a different law.