>>8398230>>8397626He's conveying, through his very retarded understanding, that if the crafted material looks indistinguishable from real CP, then it gets legally treated as such.
By that I don't mean like "Hey, she LOOKS like she could maybe be underage!", I mean stuff like regular adult porn being photomanipulated to use the likenesses of child actors and shit. The kid was never fucked (at least by the shooper, Diddy probably got a bunch of them), but it looks 'lifelike' and that's where they get got.
AI could do basically that very same thing (or just conjure up a completely fake kid), just easier and probably better, and since it looks like 100% real CP, that's what it gets treated as.
I'm pretty sure that this isn't something that the Supreme Court ever actually ruled on themselves, rather that this is from case law. While AI has probably vastly overtaken this field now, it apparently used to be once that one of the most common materials these people would get busted for was the photomanipulation stuff, which wasn't actually illegal until the late 90s or early 2000s or so, and thus used to be more openly available.
tl;dr it would need to have more than just kind of a realist look for it to really matter (Federally, anyway).
