This is a difficult topic to talk about, but I want to heavily preface that I don't believe the technology should be encouraged as a supplement of "authentic" material. There is a reason that, as a society, we collectively agree that the sexual exploitation of minors is a form of abuse.

In my opinion, there is a lot we don't understand about the human mind and we should not be encouraging that AI is a "better" option. It is a very, very difficult subject to discuss succinctly, and I am by no means an expert, but I do not feel that suddenly presuming that the use of generative AI with a more ethical foundation for producing such content is a safe approach. It may encourage and normalise the exploitation of children or encourage people to progressively seek more thrill-seeking behaviour, which will result in people being hurt.

Ultimately, the only thing I can say is that anyone who has such thoughts should seek professional help. That includes paedophiles and anyone who may be slipping down a slop that AI seems to be encouraging.

It's a fascinating topic philosophically, but the discussion has very, very real, and lifelong consequences.

Also, I want to emphasise that I am not an AI researcher. I do have an education, but I'm not there yet. This is just something I think and worry about a lot.

I think the thing that you're missing is a teenager is generally not going to be able to make a photoshop that's believable, whereas they can currently generate totally believable pictures and even video using GenAI. Sure, some will realize it must be AI, but some won't and no matter what, the theoretical 13yo is going to feel just as threatened and violated.

The problem is that no regulation is ever going to work on the endpoints, so things like age-verification are pointless and an invasion of privacy. The only thing that will work is going after the companies, their training data, and the infrastructure. There will be stuff out of the country's jurisdiction, but we already have laws handling that type of thing, and while imperfect, they do draw a line. And yes, local models will still be a thing, but you don't enforce against the creation, you enforce against the trafficking of such images. If some modern day teenage da Vinci painted a near-photorealistic nude of a classmate, he can do that. But the minute he shares it, it comes under existing laws in sharing such images. Why should GenAI be treated any differently?

Disagree strongly about all this being inevitable. And not taking a stand against mega-billion dollar companies enabling this is ridiculous, IMO.

To take your example of the photo industry, we have laws on the books against certain types of photography being either produced, in your possession, or sharing them. Why should GenAI be any different? If a server delivers you a nude image of someone without their consent and/or underaged, the company that owns that server has produced and distributed something actionable.

And sure, local models can and do exist, but hell, most people aren't even willing to get off Windows and move to Linux - you think many folks are going to be paying for the hardware and developing/training their own local models? The same rules that keep beastiality/CP/etc (mostly) off the net can be used against them if they try and share them. And most importantly, by doing that, society says that kind of thing is not acceptable. Traffic laws aren't enforced 100% of the time, but can you imagine what kind of hellscape it would be if we didn't have them at all?

Sadly yes you're right. We're at the point where we as a society have to wrap our head around the fact that images (and even video) are no longer proof of reality.

I've seen a few attempts at cameras which digitally sign the image as proof of reality. That may end up being the new normal.