It's a crime, but it's not the same crime as taking the actual clothes off the actual girl. She was not physically abused. She was not even *involved.*

> The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN) defines child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as "evidence of child sexual abuse" that "includes both real and synthetic content Were you too busy fapping to read the article?

AI CSAM was generated from real CSAM AI being able to accurately undress kids is a real issue in multiple ways

I mean the capitalist are the ones calling the shots since the imperial core is no democracy. This is their battle we are their dildos.

> The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN) defines child sexual abuse material (CSAM) as "evidence of child sexual abuse" that "includes both real and synthetic content

AI can draw Shrek on the moon. Do you think it needed real images of that?

I get this and I don't disagree, but I also hate that AI fully brought back thought crimes as a thing. I don't have a better approach or idea, but I really don't like that simply drawing a certain arrangement of lines and colors is now a crime. I've also seen a lot of positive sentiment at applying this to other forms of porn as well, ones less universally hated. Not supporting this use case at all and on balance I think this is the best option we have, but I do think thought crimes as a concept are just as concerning, especially given the current political climate.

And abuse is a different word than rape. Maybe meditate on that

And what if neither happened?

Sure, i think it's weird to really care about loli or furry or any other *niche*, but ai generating material of actual children (and unwilling people besides) is actually harmful. If they can't have effective safeguards against that harm it makes sense to restrict it legally.

When all her friends and family see that image, she is definitely involved. And it's definitely abuse.

It used real images of shrek and the moon to do that. It didnt "invent" or "imagine" either. The child porn it's generating is based on literal child porn, if not itself just actual child porn.

You think these billion-dollar companies keep hyper-illegal images around, just to train their hideously expensive models to do the things they do not want those models to do?

Does a depiction of her corpse mean she's dead?

It literally can't combine unrelated concepts though. Not too long ago there was the issue where one (Dall-E?) couldn't make a picture of a full glass of wine because every glass of wine it had been trained on was half full, because that's generally how we prefer to photograph wine. It has no concept of "full" the way actual intelligences do, so it couldn't connect the dots. It had to be trained on actual full glasses of wine to gain the ability to produce them itself.

>steam >does nothing >wins

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

Guy atomically made of shit takes has another shit take, colour me surprised.

False equivalence.

The central goddamn point. *Depicting* things happening does not mean they *actually happened.* The entire point of the term CSAM is to describe crimes which literally occurred. It is material... from the sexual abuse... of children. Do y'all not understand why it's kinda fuckin' important to have a term for that specific concept?