That's impossible because there is no tag. When you see a statement on the internet you need to automatically assume the poster truly believes it or else you open the door to the intolerant.

Pasting a face over a body in photoshop is just as easy as snapping a polaroid of someone and pasting their face on a porn mag. AI just makes it faster.

Don't worry buddy, send me a picture and I can do it for you, free of charge!

Well, how about a cock pic?

Or how about just adults.

Adult Adults or Pubescent Adults? Because that sounds like you want a lower bar to clear? Japan is one of many nations following Romeo and Juliet laws which protect minors age 14 to 18 and pre-existing relationships from persecution by the law, but personally I think production of all sub-18 pornographic imagery should be banned and all gratuitous imagery should be heavily restricted.

Adults. Where I am from the word adult only has one meaning. An adult is a person of 18 years of age at the very least.

You said "mature looking" for which a 16 year old person might qualify depending on the exact interpretation which is not ok. It doesn't matter what they look like, it matters whether they are an adult or not. Going for looks reminds me of creeps going "he/she is so mature for his/her age". That is not ok.

We're talking about fictional women and artwork, their physical age is measured in seconds. In my language Woman means to say Adult Female, as opposed to Girl.

Oh right. My mistake. I guess when it comes to art then anything that isn't obviously a child is technically legal, if distasteful and morally more than questionable. At least that is the legal situation in most countries.

My objective is the minimisation of harm. If someone uses artwork and that means that they will never touch an underage person then that is a good thing even though I may not like it.

I unironically had that

My objective is the minimisation of harm. If someone uses artwork and that means that they will never touch an underage person then that is a good thing even though I may not like it.

I have never understood why we persecute and prosecute seemingly without taking this into account at all and treat someone with pedophile urges who never acted on them the same way as we treat someone who looked at drawn images and both of those the same was as someone who looks at actual images of real children being abused or someone who actively abuses children.

If anything we should try to offer the first two help in their attempts to never let their urges affect any real, existing children.

However a lot of the time it feels more like our society is designed to achieve the opposite in its active hostility to people who want to live their lives largely in places where they won't encounter children.

I'd really love to believe the narrative that the widespread adoption of LLMs will lead to a renaissance of technological breakthroughs, but deep down I know that it's ultimately going to amplify and enable the absolute worst of what humanity has to offer.

I tend to lean more towards the problem being distribution rather than creation, so I'm curious about your opinion on this: Is there a difference between me imaging a sexual act with someone without their consent vs writing/drawing/deepfaking it?

Don't let fear of being "racist" keep you from calling a spade a spade. Japan has a track record when it comes to issues such as these.

In my opinion absolutely. Whatever happens in your head stays in your head and doesn't affect the other person unless you take active steps for that to happen. Images or videos on the other hand can not only be distributed far easier, even accidentally, but also have a way higher chance of affecting people's lives (how can you disprove you didn't take nude photos of yourself for example? let alone make people believe it). They can lead to loss of reputation, harassment, bullying and serious mental issues for the victims (trust issues, anxiety, depression, self-harm) - imagination can't really do that on its own.

Perhaps distribution is the real problem but easy access to tools that can create convincing results quickly and without effort makes said distribution way more probable.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It sounds like your main issue is the potential damage that could be caused and not the act itself?

The deepfake concern is moot imo.

If there's fake porn of every celebrity in existence then no one photo can be trusted as real, no one different or more put upon than anyone else, all in the same boat.

sees a naked photo of a celeb or hear them say something so offbase that it can't be true

meh, probably fake...

forever.

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It sounds like it's the potential for harm/damage rather than the act itself that makes it an issue for you?

Fake celebrity nudes have been around since.... How old is Adobe photoshop now?

It's just going to be up to a level where it will go full circle and people won't actually believe true nudes are real because the default expectation is that they are all fake.

I don't think you correctly parsed my statement at all tbh. I was saying optics is the only indication of age in these images, they cannot literally be 18 if they don't exist.

So if they look adult they are.