Do you have sources to back up the fact that "it encourages and is often found coincident with real CSAM"? You can't just claim that it's common sense that an AI-generated image of a child is encouraging real child abuse. Generative AI hasn't even been around for long enough to be part of common knowledge.

Again: it's you that has put the specific "AI" projection onto "CG".

As I say, this term appears to be used in the past broadly to include the kind of 3D animations that appear in conventional porn adverts, and also to face-swap and other Photoshop-type edits.

All I can say is that prosecutions in the UK for example have often mentioned such material alongside conventionally shared material.

I don't think I've read about any prosecutions where fake material was the only material justifying prosecution. But I could have missed that.

I have absolutely no interest in getting into the rest of the argument, which is tedious and IMO kind of obvious on many grounds.