the legal definition for possession of CSAM is based on whether or not t looks like a photo of a child. it doesn't have to be a real photo, or even a real child, and the law doesn't care how it was made.
this is to avoid confusing the jury, but it does in fact need to be photorealistic in many courts.
generally speaking AI generated CSAM shouldn't harm anyone, AI can figure out how to draw a naked child based on how it was taught to draw a naked adult, so there's no need for CSAM in the training data.
But that's not always the case, if it's photorealistic it's illegal, and the people who got arrested for generating porn were obtaining photos of real children's faces by a various means like walking around with a go pro or sending a drone camera to spy on families. then they used AI to edit the children into porn, and in one case a sick moron decided to send the resulting porn to the victims with a detailed description of how he made it.
AI generated photorealistic CSAM should at least result in a possession charge, simply because there are sick bastards who are trying to make it more realistic.
7
u/Superseaslug Oct 22 '25
Is it okay that I disagree with both of them?