Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it really child abuse if no children were involved? I think there is an empirical question one step beyond this. Does a pedophile who sees AI child porn get inured to it and then go on to try to act out fantasies with real victims? Or does this give pedophiles a way to satiate their desires indefinitely with only AI-based content, and lead to a lower portion abusing actual kids? A second order issue is that dist…
Allowing AI generated realistic CSAM while prohibiting real CSAM creates a real enforcement problem. Do prosecutors now need to find and identify depicted victims to prove a CSAM charge? Does believing material was AI generated serve as a defense? We already have severe limitations on fictional depictions of this type of content so prosecuting AI depictions isn't anything particularly new.
Surely that would be a good thing if it incentivizes prosecutors to track down the purveyors and distributors instead of just stopping with easily targeted consumers. With nothing to establish beyond mere possession, by some metrics their performance is optimized to the contrary, much like the war on drugs.
> Does believing material was AI generated serve as a defense?
Believing that stolen property was legitimately acquired is a defense against a charge of possession of stolen property, as is plausibly claiming to have been set up. The alternative enables anyone with physical access to cause anyone else to be guilty of a crime, surely a net negative for society.
> We already have severe limitations on fictional depictions of this type of content so prosecuting AI depictions isn't anything particularly new.
Are you advocating its expansion to a general principle? Maybe Agatha Christie should have faced charges for the crimes committed by her characters.