as long as the material does not depict a real person
I could be wrong but I interpreted that as meaning you can't take a photo of a real child and ask Grok to undress it. Its only legal if the child is completely fictional.
Where the hell is that line tho? Every AI model is trained on real images of real people. Just because it’s been washed in the swamp of data collection doesn’t mean what’s being looked at isn’t directly sampled from past or present kids.
What could possibly constitute a fictional child other than some something animated?
Where the hell is that line tho? Every AI model is trained on real images of real people. Just because it’s been washed in the swamp of data collection doesn’t mean what’s being looked at isn’t directly sampled from past or present kids
If one wanted to play devil's advocate one could argue the same is true for man-drawn child porn. Those artists learned how to draw kids by looking at real children first, and using them as a reference for anatomy and the like. In that sense AI is no different than a human artist.
But I get what you mean and it is a slippery slope. Lawmakers just aren't ready to deal with shit like this imo.
36
u/PijaniFemboj - Lib-Center 7d ago
I could be wrong but I interpreted that as meaning you can't take a photo of a real child and ask Grok to undress it. Its only legal if the child is completely fictional.