That’s about the right amount of words to completely ignore the sentiment of a statement so you can make a vapid holier-than-thou statement based on purported moral superiority.

What a dumb take. And I do those myself, so I know one if I see one.

That’s a lot of words to defend fake child porn made out of photos and videos of actual children.

Uh…this is the second sentence or so (and the start of the second paragraph, I think)

If we allow people to use this tech for adults (which we really shouldn’t)

So I’m not sure where you got the idea that I’m defending AI-generated child porn.

Unless you’re so adamant about AI porn generators existing that banning their usage on adults (or invading the privacy of the users and victims with oversight) is outright unthinkable? Lol

I’m saying that IF the technology exists, people will be using it on pictures of children. We need to keep that in mind when we think about laws for this stuff. It’s not just adults uploading pictures of themselves (perfectly fine) or adult celebrities (not fine, but probably more common than any truly acceptable usage).

Have you tried actually reading what they said instead of just making shit up?

Reading comprehension not a strong suit? Sounds to me they’re arguing for protections for both adults AND minors.