if i were a world-controlling overlord ai, i would definitely stop pedophiles from having access to actual children. i wouldn't care (much) if they had access to simulations involving no actual children. in this hypothetical overlord ai scenario, i wouldn't care about ai csam. in the world we do live in, it is not feasible to achieve a 100% separation of children from pedophiles. pedos often prize careers that put them in contact with children, like schoolteacher, priest, and camp councillor. they build their lives around becoming a community pillar that will be trusted around kids. in this world where people build their lives around defeating society's attempts to separate pedophiles and children, i do care about ai csam. i don't want bad people to feel tempted or emboldened. i don't want a market to exist for the data and i don't want people to seek fresh training data with which to improve the models. i also don't want to establish an all-watchful surveillance state capable of remotely identifying collections of ai csam for the purpose of identifying pedophiles so that they can be kept separate from kids. ironically, if i did favor such a surveillance apparatus, i would be back to not caring about ai csam, since it would in that scenario serve a useful info-gathering function which improves child safety in its operation. i am not totally convinced that lolicon serves the same population as realistic csam. i do not know. i would want research to be done on that. if it does serve the same population, all concerns relevant to csam apply. if it serves a different population, proper policy depends on the population that it actually serves. i am revolted by it myself, but i do not mistake my revulsion response for a moral judgment in and of itself.
United States