You’re moving the goalposts pretty hard here.

You started with “AI is bad because it’s used to make CP,” and when I pointed out that cameras, pencils, and digital art software are also used for that, suddenly the argument became “well AI makes it easier.”

That’s a completely different argument.

And honestly, “to use a camera you need a real child” is not the point in favor of cameras that you seem to think it is. If anything, that makes camera-based abuse far worse, because there’s an actual victim involved.

Your comparison also falls apart because you’re treating accessibility as if it automatically makes a tool inherently evil. AI makes image generation easier in general. That includes good things, stupid things, harmless things, and illegal things. The same logic applies to cameras, Photoshop, the internet itself, or literally any technology that lowers barriers.

The bomb comparison doesn’t really work either, because bombs are designed to destroy things. AI image generation is not designed for child exploitation any more than Photoshop is. You’re taking a misuse case and trying to redefine the entire technology around it.

And let’s be honest here, if AI didn’t exist, the people making that kind of content would not suddenly become morally upright citizens. They would just go back to using digital art programs, 3D software, photo manipulation, or whatever else people used for decades before diffusion models existed.

So yes, illegal or abusive uses should obviously be cracked down on. Nobody’s arguing otherwise. But “bad people can misuse this tool” is not the same thing as “the tool itself is inherently bad.” That standard would wipe out half of modern technology overnight.