It is indeed a complicated problem with many intertwined variables, wouldn't wanna be in the shoes of policy makers (assuming that they actually are searching for an honest solution and not trying to turn this into profit lol).

For instance too much regulation on fields like this essentially would kill high quality open source AI tools and make most of them proprietary software leaving the field in the mercy of tech monopolies. This is probably what these monopolies want and they will surely try to push things this way to kill competition (talk about capitalism spurring competition and innovation!). They might even don the cloak of some of these bad actors to speed up the process. Given the possible application range of AI, this is probably even more dangerous than flooding the internet with revenge porn.

%100 freedom, no regulations will essentially lead to a mixed situation of creative and possibly ground breaking uses of the tech vs many bad actors using the tech for things like scamming, disinformation etc. how it will balance out on the long run is probably very hard to predict.

I think two things are clear, 1-both extremities are not ideal, 2- between the two extremities %100 freedom is still the better option (the former just exchanges many small bad actors for a couple giant bad actors and chokes any possible good outcomes).

Based on these starting with a solution closer to the "freedom edge" and improving it step by step based on results is probably the most sensible approach.

the only perceivable reason to create these videos is either for private consumption, in which case, who gives a fuck. Or for public distribution, otherwise you wouldn't create them. And you'd have to be a bit of a weird breed to create AI porn of specific people for private consumption.

If AI isn't involved, the same general principles would apply, except it might include more people now.

Personally, legal is only what the law allows the wealthy to do, and provides punishments for the working class.

if you have schizoprehnia, sure. Legal is what the law defines as ok. Whether or not people get charged for it is another thing. The question is "do you have the legal right to do it or not"

Morally, that’s what you’re doing when you use AI to generate CSAM. Its the same idea why we ban all pre-created CSAM, as well, because you are victimizing the person every single time.

legally, the reasoning behind this is because it's just extremely illegal, there are almost no if not zero, where it would be ok or reasonable, and therefore the moral framework tends to be developed around that. I don't necessarily agree with it always being victimization, because there are select instances where it just doesn't really make sense to consider it that, there are acts you commit that would make it victimization. However i like to subscribe to the philosophy that it is "abusive" material, and therefore innately wrong. Like blackmail, i find that to be a little bit more strict and conducive to that sort of definition.

It makes them a victim.

at one point in time yes, perpetually in some capacity, they will exist as having been a victim, or having been victimized at one point. I also don't really consider it to be healthy or productive to engage in "once a victim always a victim" mentality, because i think it sets a questionable precedent for mental health care. Semantically someone who was a victim once, is still a victim of that specific event, however it's a temporally relevant victimization, i just think people are getting a little loose on the usage of that word recently.

I'm still not sure how it makes that person a victim, unless it meets one of the described criteria i laid out, in which case it very explicitly becomes an abusive work. Otherwise it's questionable how you would even attribute victimization to the victim in question, because there is no explicit victim to even consider. I guess you could consider everybody even remotely tangentially relevant to be a victim, but that then opens a massive blackhole of logical reasoning which can't trivially be closed.

To propose a hypothetical here. Let's say there is a person who we will call bob. Bob has created a depiction of "abuse" in such a horrendous manner that even laying your eyes upon such a work will forever ruin you. We will define the work in question to be a piece of art, depicting no person in particular, arguably barely resembling a person at all, however the specific definition remains to the reader. You could hypothetically in this instance argue that even viewing the work is capable of making people a "victim" to it. However you want to work that one out.

The problem here, is that bob hasn't created this work in complete isolation, because he's just a person, he interacts with people, has a family, has friends, acquaintances, he's a normal person, aside from the horrors beyond human comprehension he has created. Therefore, in some capacity the influence of these people in his life, has to have influenced the work he engaged in on that piece. Are the people who know/knew bob, victims of this work as well, regardless of whether or not they have seen it, does the very act of being socially related to bob make them a victim of the work? For the purposes of the hypothetical we'll assume they haven't seen the work, and that he has only shown it to people he doesn't personally know.

I would argue, and i think most people would agree with me, that there is no explicit tie in between the work that bob has created, and the people he knows personally. Therefore, it would be a stretch to argue that because those people were tangentially relevant to bob, are now victims, even though they have not been influenced by it. Could it influence them in some external way, possibly causing some sort of external reaction? Yeah, that's a different story. We're not worried about that.

This is essentially the problem we have with AI, there is no explicit resemblance to any given person (unless defined, which i have already explicitly opted out of) or it has inherently based the image off of via training (which i have also somewhat, explicitly opted out of as well) there are two fundamental problems here that need to be answered. First of all, how are these people being victimized? By posting images publicly on the internet? Seems like they consented to people at least being aware of them, if not to some degree manipulating images of them, because there is nothing to stop that from happening (as everyone already knows from NFTs) And second of all, how are we defining these victims? What's the mechanism we use to determine the identity of these people, otherwise, we're just schizophrenically handwaving the term around calling people victims when we have no explicit way of determining that. You cannot begin to call someone a victim, if it's not even know whether they were victimized or not. You're setting an impossible precedent here.

Even if you can summarily answer those two questions in a decidedly explicit manner, it's still questionable whether that would even matter. Because now you would have to demonstrate some form of explicit victimization and damage resulting from that victimization. Otherwise you're just making the argument of "it's mine because i said so"

The law exists to protect the ruling class while not binding them, and to bind the working class without protecting them.

again if you're schizo, sure.

Yes.

on a loosely defined basis, yeah, in some capacity it uses the likeness of that person, but to what degree? How significantly? If the woman in the mona lisa picture was 4% some lady the artist saw three times a week due to their habits/routine would that make them suddenly entitled to some of that art piece in particular? What about the rest of it? You're running down an endless corridor of infinitely unfalsifiable, and falsifiable statements. There is no clear answer here.

Exactly. So, without consent, it shouldn’t be used. Periodt.

you need to explicitly define consent, and use, because without defining those, it's literally impossible to even begin determining the end position here.