We all live in a two tier justice system. The one tier is for the capital class. Generally, as long as they don't commit crimes against the government or others in the capital class. These offenders get the slap on the wrist justice system. The Government had enough evidence between witnesses and documentary evidence from the Epstein files to atleast open investigations and charge some of the people. The only people to be arrested and charged were Epstein and Maxwell. It took a long time before either of them faced any serious consequences for their actions. Everyone else gets the go fuck yourself justice system.

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.

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."

And you think it's short on images of fully naked women?

It doesn't matter if there's a victim or not. It's the depiction of CSA that is illegal. So no, talking about whatever or not there's a victim is not the most important part. It doesn't matter if you draw it by hand with crayons. If it's depicting CSA it's illegal.

I'm saying it can't combine clothed children and naked adults to make naked children. It doesn't know what "naked" means. It can't imagine what something might look like. It can only make naked children if it has been trained on them directly.

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.

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

Yes and they've been proven to do so. Meta (Facebook) recently made the news for pirating a bunch of ebooks to train its AI. Anna's Archive, a site associated with training AI, recently scraped some 99.9% of Spotify songs. They say at some point they will make torrents so the common people can download it, but for now they're using it to teach AI to copy music. (Note: Spotify uses lower quality than other music currently available, so AA will offer nothing new if/when they ever do release these torrents.) So, yes, that is exactly what they're doing. They are training their models on all the data, not just all the legal data.

That doesn't stop everyone from directly calling elon musk a pedophile for creating a CP generating machine.

No, I think these billion dollar companies are incredibly sloppy about curating the content they steal to train their systems on.

‘I take child abuse seriously but also think it’s fine to generate nude pictures of real life children.’ Idk man. It’s a weird fuckin thing to admit to.

Literally this meme again 

Do you think that generated depictions of the sexual abuse of children are ok in any context?

Please send me pictures of your mom so that I may draw her naked and post it on the internet.

I already did the “what words mean” thing earlier. -involves a child -is sexual -is abusive (ie, not art) -is material That’s literally every word of CSAM, and it fits. >We need a term to specifically refer to actual photographs of actual child abuse? Why? You’ve made a whole lot of claims it should be your way but you’ve provided no sources nor any justification as to why we need to delineate between real and AI.