This is stickier than that in the US. I can paint a realistic nude and it's expression. Whether my tool is a paintbrush or neural network, as far as I know right now, makes no difference.
You might have some opportunity exploring a defamation action, but still, it's tenuous.
I don't have an answer, but I think we're looking at constitutional battles.
I mean most laws in the general rather than specific context. To be more obvious, I'm pointing out that just because the Supreme Court hasn't offered an opinion that that doesn't delegitimize the law. As otherwise there'd be thousands? of laws in a similar boat.
For further comparison revenge porn laws also have a similar potential for a first amendment defense but thus far have weathered challenges.
So how do you determine if someone is in possession of non consensual nude pictures? We as a society properly assume that all underage nudity is non consensual because children can’t legally give consent to nice pictures
But the creation/use of CSAM and meth harm people other than the person using them. I don't see who's being harmed if a model is used to generate a nude image, and that image isn't distributed.
I wasn't making a qualitative comparison of the harms, merely responding to the question of what kinds of laws and enforcement mechanisms will be used to stop AI pornification of people.
Simply put, I don't think we'll see anything we haven't seen before, because this isn't a new thing that hasn't been done before- only the means of production (using AI) is new.
I responded with a little more detail to a sibling content, but if laws for banning CSAM and meth exist due to the negative externalities of possessing them - that's where I think this is different. If we see laws come about for regulating AI private-use content production, I suspect we'll see some unique court cases about it, premised around free speech / lack of harm.
I don't think the analogy to generative models holds. The possession and consumption of meth and CSAM _drive_ production of meth and CSAM; it's a supply and demand market. So simply possessing it harms others as well.
A generative model is different. You can produce as much content with it as you want, hallucinated out of thin air. The production of said content doesn't have externalities, other than electricity usage, if the content isn't distributed.
You might have some opportunity exploring a defamation action, but still, it's tenuous.
I don't have an answer, but I think we're looking at constitutional battles.