Especially the part about maybe generating specifically tailored material to "train" folks. Although, while obviously moral instead of immoral like "gay conversion therapy", I wonder if it would be just as ineffective.

    and would cut down on the motivating factors 
    to produce authentic CP (for which original 
    production is often a requirement to join 
    CP distribution rings).

I obviously can't speak for enjoyers of CP. But when watching normal porn, I think part of the thrill for many/most people is knowing that what's happening is real.

Another potential risk is that a flood of publicly available, machine-generated CP might actually help the producers and distributors of real CP by serving as camouflage. Finding and prosecuting the people who make real CP is difficult enough already. Now, imagine if the good guys couldn't even reliably tell what was real and there were 100000x as many fake images as real ones floating around.

Yikes.

I'm wondering how true that is.

Obviously, lots of people consume hentai, and platforms like Danbooru are immensely popular.

Also, speaking personally... some of the porn that I've consumed that felt the most "real" was 3D animations where the only real humans behind them were the SFM artists (and voice actors). These artists felt free to do scenes with, like, actual cinematography, with flirting and teasing and emotions between the characters, of a kind you never see even in softcore live-action porn.

So I do wonder how much potential AI generation has for completely substituting large parts of the porn industry.

let's assume that AI generated CP should be illegal. Does it mean that possession of model that is able to generate such content should also be illegal? If not, then it's easy to just generate content on the fly and do not store anything illegal. But when we make model illegal, then how do you enforce that? Models are versatile enough to generate a lot of different content, how do you decide if ability to generate illegal content is just a byproduct or purpose of that model?

> let's assume that AI generated CP should be illegal

Well that's a big assumption, lol. I definitely agree that it would be impossible to enforce, for the reasons you say.

I personally would not be in favor of such a law at all. Partially because it's unenforceable as you say, and partially on principle.

The argument against real CP is extremely clear: we deem it abominable because it harms children. That doesn't apply to computer-generated CP, or the models/tools used to produce it.

There's the possibility that watching FOO directly encourages viewers to do FOO in real life. Like you said, this is the most fragile. I think clearly this is true in some cases -- most of us have seen a food commercial on TV and thought, "I could really go for that right now." I'm less convinced that it's true for something like pedophilia: the average person will be revolted by it, not encouraged, unless they already are into that kind of awful thing.

There's the possibility that watching FOO doesn't directly encourage viewers to do FOO, but serves to kind of normalize it. I think this happens a lot, but I think it takes a carefully crafted context and message.

There's the possibility that AI generated CP could actually helps children, by providing a safe outlet for pedophiles so that they wouldn't need to do heinous shit in real life. I recall reading studies that instances of (adult) rape in societies were inversely correlated with the availability of (adult) pornography, with a possible explanation being that porn provided a safe outlet for people who weren't getting the kind of sex they wanted.

In that sense, instead of enforcing non-existance of models, the enforcement could just make ilegal to provide any service that process inputs or provide outputs that are cp-like, by, i.e. obligating people with the models to add filters on input and/or after result is generated but before it is displayed or returned from computation.

Unless you understand real to just mean that actual humans were involved, describing porn as real seems to be a bit of a stretch more often than not.

I am assuming that any adult reading this understands that professional porn is quite different from the sex most of us experience in our private lives in a number of major ways, both emotionally and physically.[1]

But anyway, yes. By "real" I mean "real human beings, having real sex."

----

[1] There is a lot of homemade, amateur porn on the big well-known porn sites and it seems quite popular, and much of that is closer to what typical folks do at home. But that's beside the point.

If people already accepted that they need help, there are many good ways to treat people with unwanted sexual obsessions (trying to choose my words carefully here). I honestly don't think that it would help them to serve them more content.

However, I'd love to see some research to explore the possibility of involving machine generated content in psychological treatment. The core of your idea is IMHO brilliant.