The short answer is that we don't know. It has long been a legal grey area when depicting porn of underage characters that are clearly not real. There's the classic "she's actually 1000 she just looks 6 years old" and "all characters depicted are at least 18 [despite all of them being in various stages of high school]". American politicans are by and large way out of date with modern technology and cannot be expected to rule competently on the subject. Is the AI nude of a real person "revenge porn" or constitutionally protected free speech? People have been drawing fan art of underage celebs having sex with high detail for a long time (see Harry Potter/Twilight rule 34). Ultimately congress will need to make laws about this or courts will have to interpret a previous ruling as applying to these images. Unfortunately due to the Streisand Effect whomever is at the unfortunate center of this shitstorm will be forever made into pornographic material so we understand the general hesitation to get involved
No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Fake nudes of real people are generally illegal, regardless of if the nude is real, or photoshopped, or AI generated.
People have been arrested and convicted for AI porn of real people.
For now convictions seem to be confined to people who have already created/used more traditional CSAM (hidden cameras). This could just be because it is hard to catch someone simply generating images, so if someone with no record would be jailed for just fake nudes remains an open question. Fake nudes of fictional people are also very much an open question. Being very new technology, new laws have yet to be made, so feel free to write to lawmakers about where the line should be.
The following will be a massive oversimplification of the complex laws and court cases over the 20th century trying to grapple with what, quite frankly, is a fairly modern issue. Not the AI aspect, but that of CSAM and how it intersects with American civil liberties (ie the First Amendment).
In the USA, the freedom of speech is very broad, save for very specific, already-established exceptions. These include "imminent threats/fighting words", obscenity (not the same as the dictionary definition), defamation (false statements that tarnish someone's character), and the cause or result of crimes. Whole courses could be taught on just the exceptions to the First Amendment and their contours.
Actual CSAM is exempt from freedom of speech because -- among other reasons articulated by courts -- it can only be produced through abuse of a child, which is a crime. Simulated CSAM, however, has to meet the obscenity standard in order to be exempt, which the Supreme Court articulated as:
The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Every word of those guidelines has been deeply analyzed for the 50 years of its existence, and until a better set of guidelines are issued, that's the best guidestar we have. Which is to say, if a lawyer can craft an argument within those parameters, the scenario you've described could indeed be recognized as a crime.
But a small caution: please be very careful when asking to carve exceptions into free speech. As a civil right, it's something which must be jealously guarded, by citizens, lawmakers, and courts. These things are complex precisely because they're trying to avoid criminalizing thoughts and ideas, while also enabling a society to function.
Very short answer with little nuance:
Cops can arrest you for anything and are not required to know the laws. A court will sort that out. If there isn’t a specific law, the court can convict based on similar laws.