nostr:npub1x5c3ey0ehsnd62m4r7a32gnrt8re792fxx7sfa73rv7lm673wuhq84m07a nostr:npub1lnzm7z9lye2k22rlsy8hh9j426dl4kd54wh0endygjgax9q6nx9qusk8dk nostr:npub1jjurz697s4ghw8mwy5ct2rra8lupsjarc28hz8t8wpd9j9r86m3qc3533h nostr:npub1xxtl2lpsp3gshd8p7r4sjmmltwytran3xkhz8kwdq86s6jzcvvvqkjkmmv sorry but to me it still sounds like they are mainly focused on the issue of AI generating stuff that looks like CSAM of children, *not* lolis. the line about being able to generate children whether or not they actually exist isn't in reference to whether or not they are drawn, but whether the child physically exists in the real world and is being deepfaked or the generated child doesn't exist and but is being pulled from a bunch of reference images of children that do exist.

it would be like feeding a stable diffusion model a bunch of CP and a bunch of photos of your neighbor's kid, then using AI to generate CP of that kid, VS just generating things that look like they could be real children but actually aren't.

i don't think this has anything to do with loli. i think the term "realistic animations" that they use is not related to loli whatsoever because A) loli isn't realistic and B) someone saying "animations" doesn't automatically mean they are referring to anime. it could be animated deepfakes they're talking about. they never mention anything about drawings, or cartoons, it's all talking about existing CP being made into models to then make AI generated CP.

i don't think it even mentions the word "art" anywhere