I find it hypocritical and disappointing that the argument must go to the extreme end where lawmakers are forced to "think of the children" (specifically the di

I find it hypocritical and disappointing that the argument must go to the extreme end where lawmakers are forced to "think of the children" (specifically the dignity of those captured in media) before they will lift a finger to stop AI. For the sake of the rhetorical point, they specifically call out deep-fake imagery here. Does that imply that there is no moral issue with "novel" imagery? Not all the AI porn is deep-faked. We see people right now churning out batches of hundreds of (legal) images of not-quite-photoreal, generic, smooth-faced humans in sexual positions, too. Is that genericized AI pornography OK? What about if it depicted a child? In that scenario the link to the children originally affected is comparable to the link between finished AI art and an artist whose work was used to train the AI. I feel like there is some kind of link to be drawn between these two things, and feel like focusing on one and not the other is inconsistent. I of course think that this content is awful and should rightly be banned, I am just disappointed when you see lawmakers excitedly spring to action here when a hell of a lot of people are being negatively impacted by AI right now.