Sounds like I'd be happy to go with that. You're taking it to the logical conclusion and I generally agree. The problem to me is (1) people abusing children and (2) people paying other people to abuse children.
> Not sure what tax dollars have to do with this but IMO it's a small price to pay for an important service.
It isn't an important service. With the advent of generative AI models, going after people for possessing dodgy images is now more than likely persecuting people who haven't done any harm to anyone and aren't going to.
We really should have learned this lesson after Turing. If people aren't harming anyone then it is OK for them to have bizarre sexual likes and dislikes.
I agree, so long as they are not consuming something that harmed anyone. Just as we know banning ivory sales reduces elephant poaching, contributing to demand causes harm. Putting an AI step in between the CP and its consumption is the same as before, it doesn't change anything.
The only way around it is the model is not trained on any child abuse material, otherwise legally it's consuming a CP product.
But the harm in it comes from generating further demand and normalising the sexualization of children. And than can happen with any material from before or after 1850. If a model is trained on it, it becomes a derivative work that should be treated no differently than a b&w version of a colour abuse image.
Not sure what tax dollars have to do with this but IMO it's a small price to pay for an important service.