> Do prosecutors now need to find and identify depicted victims to prove a CSAM charge?
Surely that would be a good thing if it incentivizes prosecutors to
track down the purveyors and distributors instead of just stopping
with easily targeted consumers. With nothing to establish beyond mere
possession, by some metrics their performance is optimized to the
contrary, much like the war on drugs.
> Does believing material was AI generated serve as a defense?
Believing that stolen property was legitimately acquired is a defense
against a charge of possession of stolen property, as is plausibly
claiming to have been set up. The alternative enables anyone with
physical access to cause anyone else to be guilty of a crime, surely
a net negative for society.
> We already have severe limitations on fictional depictions of this type of content so prosecuting AI depictions isn't anything particularly new.
Are you advocating its expansion to a general principle? Maybe Agatha Christie should
have faced charges for the crimes committed by her characters.
> Surely that would be a good thing if it incentivizes prosecutors to track down the purveyors and distributors instead of just stopping with easily targeted consumers
It would make it harder to prosecute purveyors and distributors. Arguing to some amorphous 'incentive' under some unnamed "metric" is silly since we have much better ways of creating incentives if you think the investigatory or prosecutorial priorties need to shift.
> The alternative enables anyone with physical access to cause anyone else to be guilty of a crime, surely a net negative for society.
No it doesn't as these defenses are unchanged.
> Are you advocating its expansion to a general principle? Maybe Agatha Christie should have faced charges for the crimes committed by her characters.
Work on your reading comprehension instead of making ridiculous claims. I'm not advocating anything. I am describing the current legal state in our country. If you are unfamiliar with the laws about creating fictional porngraphic material with underage characters, then google is your friend.
Surely that would be a good thing if it incentivizes prosecutors to track down the purveyors and distributors instead of just stopping with easily targeted consumers. With nothing to establish beyond mere possession, by some metrics their performance is optimized to the contrary, much like the war on drugs.
> Does believing material was AI generated serve as a defense?
Believing that stolen property was legitimately acquired is a defense against a charge of possession of stolen property, as is plausibly claiming to have been set up. The alternative enables anyone with physical access to cause anyone else to be guilty of a crime, surely a net negative for society.
> We already have severe limitations on fictional depictions of this type of content so prosecuting AI depictions isn't anything particularly new.
Are you advocating its expansion to a general principle? Maybe Agatha Christie should have faced charges for the crimes committed by her characters.