[flagged]

Minors were involved. People were responding to pictures of minors and prompting Grok to sexualize them. People were uploading their own photos of real minors and asking Grok to make modifications to them.

I understand your view point and are somewhat sympathetic.

However for point one, the samples I saw were a picture of a minor posted by a minor in a normal situation. Someone would say @grok show me her in a bikini.

for point 2, this is not born out by the examples that I saw.

The bigger point here is that under UK law, there is little distinction between "real" and "fake". Any depiction of a minor engaged in sexual activities is illegal. This was to get round the "oh its photoshoped" defence. In the USA is different, but I have no experience on that point.

The only reason why I know is because a member of staff at a previous company was found to be using his workstation to store and distribute anime shit that depicted this stuff, and the company legal advice was "oh wow you are totally fucked." It was a huge faff to deal with and posed huge risks to everyone involved.

And both are illegal.

(Depending on your local jurisdiction. But GP said "Online Safety Act" so I'm making an assumption).

Social media is already full of hentai art of that sort and that isn't a problem to most countries, so a little thought leads to the obvious point that your basic assumptions are incorrect.

Minors were involved and people were generating sexually charged images ("donut glaze" etc). This is why other countries, like South Korea, also went after X under deepfake related regulations.

I guess when discussing the reasons for the law failing to bring about the intended changes, we only need to agree on that the law did not intend to make this distinction (though it definitely could have made them, even before LLM this was a deliberate choice) - not whether doing so would have been advisable.

You dont want to allow a market, which is why in many countries even imaginary CSAM is illegal.