That's not necessarily true. You could have all sorts of training models that didn't rely on any real children at all. You're just assuming it was trained on actual child porn. Other ways it could be trained:

• Trained on images of adults that look younger than 18. You could commission a bunch of pornography by people with whatever medical condition this guy has and use that as your training data.

• Trained on pornographic images of adults and regular images of kids. (This one is questionable legally, even though again, no kids were harmed in the making of it.)

• Trained on entirely on images of adults, reviewers are tasked with trying to identify the age of the person in the image generated, and using that as training data.

If someone was deliberately trying to create a legal child porn engine (what a horrible phrase to type), they would be sure to do it without using any actual child porn as the training data. There would be little point otherwise.

This is completely wrong. I have no idea how you can say this when it is plainly obvious that ai can create things it never saw.

What? No, that's wrong. They can, for example, create a picture of a monkey made of yarn. Does that mean they were trained on pictures of 'yarn monkeys'?

No, they had pictures of monkeys and pictures of things made of yarn; therefore, they can create pictures of 'yarn monkeys'.

If you want to learn more about that, the specific term is 'latent space'.

If AIs could only reproduce their training data they would be completely useless.