Sure, but then that's a home run for every defense lawyer assigned to these. "Your honor, my client thought they were real photos she published," becomes a legitimate defense. "My client didn't realize a real person was involved at all, he thought the image was entirely fictitious." People publishing AI fakes aren't going to add exif data, and requiring meta data on AI generated images sounds like its own separate overreach.
If someone completely independently generates and distributes pornography that ends up looking too much like a real person, and someone else downloads and keeps that image, should the downloader be prosecuted? That's what it's going to come down to, I think. If you want a law that requires intent, it will be too difficult to prove, and if you want a law that does not require intent, it may be a big overreach.
It's easier to write the law for CSAM because you have to be pretty fucked in the head to want to look at that in the first place. Making possession of it illegal isn't interfering with normal human activity.
Scribbling over that section of the ballot is also a distinct choice you have. That would affect the outcome just as much as voting third party.
"Blue MAGA." It's wild how far-right actors have the self-awareness to write "Blueanon" or "Blue MAGA." Cool to see their strategies are working and the term is getting picked up with other groups.
Breath of the Wild removed pretty much everything that made the series great. It leaves behind a meh game with some of the lore Nintendo knows will sell units.
There's simply no reason an all-powerful being needs anyone to be tortured to death to initiate a forgiveness. Torturing someone's descendants because they fucked up is some cartel shit. If your religion has morals on par with a cartel you might be objectively incorrect.
You have to believe that a malevolent AI will give enough of a damn about you to bother simulating anything at all, let alone infinite torture, which is useless for it to do once it already exists. Everyone on LessWrong has a well-fed ego so I get why they were in a tizzy for a while.
Sure, but then that's a home run for every defense lawyer assigned to these. "Your honor, my client thought they were real photos she published," becomes a legitimate defense. "My client didn't realize a real person was involved at all, he thought the image was entirely fictitious." People publishing AI fakes aren't going to add exif data, and requiring meta data on AI generated images sounds like its own separate overreach.