[hn_throwaway_69]

There's no reason to make such material lawful unless the converse is proved by empirical evidence. That is, can it be proved that people who view AI-based material are less likely to act on a sexual interest in real children? Unless that's proven, there's no other reason to make such material lawful. You're welcome to provide one.

The analogy is not apt. You cannot compare image-based abuse of children with a video game. GTA is a legitimate form of entertainment, child abuse material is not. They are not remotely similar. This shows why analogies are almost never helpful and it's best just to focus on the topic under discussion.

[dannyw]

We live in a society where things are allowed by default and banned if they cause harm, not a society where things are banned by default and allowed if they are proven to not cause harm.

[userbinator]

Sadly, these days one can only hope that we do.

[SXX]

I doubt anyone on HN would argue for making AI generated CSAM lawful. At the same time attempts to add unenforceable limitations into ML technology like ClosedAI trying to do is worse than useless.

You can generate whatever you want on your own PC, but if you try to use it for fraud or to share illegal material then you are a criminal.

[naniwaduni]

Legality of fictional child pornography is surprisingly contentious, with positions ranging from "protected as artwork under freedom expression", "illegal if provenance involves child abuse within jurisdiction", to "illegal but non-realistic depictions don't count", to "depiction of children are illegal, regardless of provenance", to "depictions of adults who could be mistaken for children is also illegal"—just among first-world countries. "AI-generated CSAM" ranges from obviously unlawful to an oxymoron depending on the standard applied!