I disagree. The point is to reduce actual child abuse. The images are in a way only tangential. If an image is made with an AI with no actual child being abused, then it shouldn't be a crime.
In a way, it's better, because it will distract the crowd of people into this sort of stuff from activities that harm real people.
This is actually the main point in dispute, and almost everyone arguing one side or the other on this topic seems to assume one side or the other on this point and argue from there, rather than seeking to support their position on the fundamental disputed fact question.
Which results in the most of the debate being people talking past each other based on conflicting assumptions of fact.
>I disagree. The point is to reduce actual child abuse.
There are limited resources, practically the only way to do this is to make it illegal to have anything that looks real (or looks derived from a real situation, in a 'I will know it when I see it way'). Otherwise, you're just making an almost impassable defence of 'it is fake' or 'I thought it was fake'. Then you can't practically reduce actual child abuse.
Thus I see no reason they would differentiate. With normal adult porn do we care that makeup and such might be involved?
I don't understand your comparison with adult porn; that might be nonconsensual but typically isn't, whereas CP is nonconsensual by definition because minors aren't legally capable of agreeing. Obviously there are grey areas like two 17-yos sexting each other, but most courts take that context into account.
Yucky as it is I believe the answer here is to have image-generating AIs sign their work. Something properly signed is known not to involve any actual children and would thus be legal.
(My philosophy in general is that for something to be illegal the state should be able to show a non-consenting victim or the undue risk of a victim (ie, DUI). I do not believe disgusting things in private warrant a law.)
I see that assertion a lot. If that's how that works, why does the very large amount of CSAM already in existence not have the same effect? Why would synthesized CSAM distract pedophiles from their activities when real CSAM from their fellow pedophiles doesn't?
I don't think they meant it would be 100% effective. And real child pornography may deter future abuse. Research is inconclusive.
This needs to be balanced against rights to privacy and expression, which I personally think take precedence, but pretending that it can serve as harm reduction is just not correct.
But I'm sorry, I just don't believe anyone holed up in their room with a bunch of fake CSAM is "just using it as an outlet" or "protecting real kids from harm." I mean, it almost sounds like a threat: "If you don't let me look at these pictures of fake kids, I'll hurt real kids." If that's the case then they should be seeing a psychiatrist, at minimum.
Violent movies that appeal to teens reduce vandalism and the like--they're in the theater rather than out causing trouble. (And it's not displaced, rates don't spike later, they just return to normal.)
My point isn't that AI CSAM should be legal or not, but whether these tools can differentiate what the lawmakers have decided is a crime or not.
Those who have no sexual interest in children are neither going to have CSAM nor engage in abuse. The fact that they had CSAM already shows it's a highly non-random sample. The control would be pedophiles with no access to CSAM--but how do you find that control group????