IMO commenters here discussing the definition of CSAM are missing the point. Definitions are working tools; it's fine to change them as you need. The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim. Non-consensual porn victimises the person being depicted, because it violates the person's rights over their own body — including its image. Plus it's ripe material for harassment. This is still true if the porn in question is machine-generated, and the sexual acts being depicted did not happen. Like the sort of thing Grok is able to generate. This is what Timothy Sweeney (as usual, completely detached from reality) is missing. And it applies to children *and adults*. The only difference is that adults can still consent to have their image shared as porn; children cannot. As such, porn depicting children will be always non-consensual, thus victimising the children in question. Now, someone else mentioned Bart's dick appears in the Simpsons movie. The key difference is that Bart is not a child, ***it*** is not even a person to begin with, ***it*** is a fictional character. There's no victim.

Is it a sexualized depiction of a minor? Then it's csam. Fuck all y'all pedo apologists.

Tim Epic sucks, and has always sucked.

That is a lot of text for someone that couldn't even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article. >Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content. There ARE victims, lots of them.

Deepfakes are illegal. You're defending deepfake cp now?

Dude, you're just wrong. There seems to be a huge disconnect with you between what the law is. And what you want the law to be. You are not allowed to take an image of someone, photoshop them naked, and distributed it. Period. You are also not allowed to depict child sexual abuse. It doesn't matter if it's not real. It's the depiction of CSA taking place that is illegal.

Making porn of actual people without their consent regardless of age is not a thought crime. For children, that's obviously fucked up. For adults it's directly impacting their reputation. It's not a victimless crime. But generating images of adults that don't exist? Or even clearly drawn images that aren't even realistic? I've seen a lot of people (from both sides of the political spectrum) advocate that these should be illegal if the content is what they consider icky. Like let's take bestiality for example. Obviously gross and definitely illegal in real life. But should a cartoon drawing of the act really be illegal? No one was abused. No reputation was damaged. No illegal act took place. It was simply someone's fucked up fantasy. Yet lots of people want to make that into a thought crime. I've always thought that if there isn't speech out there that makes you feel icky or gross then you don't really have free speech at all. The way you keep free speech as a right necessarily requires you to sometimes fight for the right of others to say or draw or write stuff that you vehemently disagree with, but recognize as not actually causing harm to a real person.

That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read a comment properly.

>That is a lot of text for someone that couldn’t even be bothered to read the first paragraph of the article. > >>Grok has the ability to take photos of real people, including minors, and produce images of them undressed or in otherwise sexually compromising positions, flooding the site with such content. > >There ARE victims, lots of them. You're only rewording what I said in the third paragraph, while implying I said the opposite. And bullshitting/assuming/lying I didn't read the text. (I did.) Learn to read dammit. I'm saying this shit Grok is doing is harmful, and that people ITT arguing "is this CSAM?" are missing the bloody point. Is this clear now?

It sounds like he's simply a Trumptard, brainwashed with their koolaid of doom. And again I'm glad I never signed up for Epic.

More like Tim NotEpic.

>The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim.

Yes, it certainly comes across as you arguing for the opposite since you above, reiterated >The real thing to talk about is the presence or absence of a victim. Which has never been an issue. It has never mattered in CSAM if it's fictional or not. It's the depiction that is illegal.

He wants to see loads of AI generated porn of himself...

Tim Sweeny is a jackass.

I hate that the newest Unreal Tournament just kinda... Disappeared. I mean, it's still playable I think, just not online and aside from a week or so after it launched, I ain't ever heard anyone talking about it. It was *okay...* Balance was not quite there, and it only had 2 maps when I last played it. But it had potential.

Yeah. I’m as tired of the argument that pretty much anything goes as far as free speech goes as I am of the “everything is a slippery slope when we make laws to keep people from doing harmful shit.” I mean what’s the required damage before people put a stop to inciteful speech and objectively harmful lies? Germany had to kill a few million people before they decided that maybe displaying Nazi symbols and speech wasn’t a good idea. So we have a platform being used to make CSAM. There should be immediate action to end the means to do so, but these tools make up all kinds of reasons why we can’t do that…economic, censorship, whatever.

Which they then talk about and point out that victims are absolutely present in this case... If this is still too hard to understand i will simplify the sentence. They are saying: "The important thing to talk about is, whether there is a victim or not."

Tim EpicFail.

It had so much potential, it looked beautiful and just needed polish and some maps made for it. Could have sold it for $10-$20 easy