> CSAM does not have a universal definition.

Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning.

> In Sweden for instance, CSAM is any image of an underage subject (real or realistic digital) designed to evoke a sexual response.

No corroboration found on web. Quite the contrary, in fact:

"Sweden does not have a legislative definition of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)"

https://rm.coe.int/factsheet-sweden-the-protection-of-childr...

> If you take a picture of a 14 year old girl (age of consent is 15) and use Grok to give her bikini, or make her topless, then you are most definately producing and possessing CSAM.

> No abuse of a real minor is needed.

Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is considered a record of a crime, emphasizing that its existence represents the abuse of a child."

Putting a bikini on a photo of a child may be distasteful abuse of a photo, but it is not abuse of a child - in any current law.

This is the actual law (Brottsbalken 16:10a)

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/sven...

A person who

1. depicts a child in a pornographic image,

2. disseminates, transfers, provides, exhibits, or otherwise makes such an image of a child available to another person,

3. acquires or offers such an image of a child,

4. facilitates contacts between buyers and sellers of such images of children or takes any other similar measure intended to promote trade in such images, or

5. possesses such an image of a child or views such an image to which he or she has gained access

shall be sentenced for a child pornography offense to imprisonment for at most two years.

Then there's Proposition 2009/10:70, which is a clarifying document on how the law should be interpreted:

https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/prop...

Let me quote (translated):

"To depict a child in a pornographic image entails the production of such an image of a child. An image can be produced in various ways, e.g., by photographing, filming, or drawing a real child. Through various techniques, more or less artificial images can also be created. For criminal liability, it is not required that the image depicts a real child; images of fictitious children are also covered. New productions can also be created by reproducing or manipulating already existing depictions, for example, by editing film sequences together in a different order or by splicing an image of a child’s head onto an image of another child’s body."

" Strange that there was no disagreement before "AI", right? Yet now we have a clutch of new "definitions" all of which dilute and weaken the meaning. "

Are you from Sweden? Why do you think the definition was clear across the world and not changed "before AI"? Or is it some USDefaultism where Americans assume their definition was universal?

> Even the Google "AI" knows better than that. CSAM "is [...]"

Please don't use the "knowledge" of LLMs as evidence or support for anything. Generative models generate things that have some likelihood of being consistent with their input material, they don't "know" things.

Just last night, I did a Google search related to the cell tower recently constructed next to our local fire house. Above the search results, Gemini stated that the new tower is physically located on the Facebook page of the fire department.

Does this support the idea that "some physical cell towers are located on Facebook pages"? It does not. At best, it supports that the likelihood that the generated text is completely consistent with the model's input is less than 100% and/or that input to the model was factually incorrect.

> - in any current law.

It has been since at least 2012 here in Sweden. That case went to our highest court and they decided a manga drawing was CSAM (maybe you are hung up on this term though, it is obviously not the same in Swedish).

The holder was not convicted but that is besides the point about the material.

In Swedish:

https://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/5f881006d4d346b199ca...

> Även en bild där ett barn t.ex. genom speciella kameraarrangemang framställs på ett sätt som är ägnat att vädja till sexualdriften, utan att det avbildade barnet kan sägas ha deltagit i ett sexuellt beteende vid avbildningen, kan omfattas av bestämmelsen.

Which translated means that the children does not have to be apart of sexual acts and indeed undressing a child using AI could be CSAM.

I say "could" because all laws are open to interpretation in Sweden and it depends on the specific image. But it's safe to say that many images produces by Grok are CSAM by Swedish standards.

Where do these people come from???

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

"Sweden does not have a legislative definition of child sexual abuse material (CSAM)"

Because that is up to the courts to interpret. You cant use your common law experience to interpret the law in other countries.