AI, Child Abuse Images, and the Legal Gap
Recently, an IT specialist working in a school was caught with 54 AI-generated child abuse images on his computer. These weren’t random images, each was produced from his own written descriptions of pre-teen children in sexualised scenarios. The magistrate called the material “equally abhorrent” to real child sexual abuse material (CSAM). And yet, the man walked away without prison time, just a three-year good behaviour bond.
For survivors, families, and child protection advocates, this decision feels like a devastating failure. Because behind every “fake” or AI-generated image is a very real mindset, one that normalises and sexualises children. That mindset is what fuels grooming, exploitation, and abuse. If the law doesn’t treat this behaviour seriously, what message does it send?
Why AI-Generated Abuse Material Still Matters
Some people online asked whether AI-generated CSAM “really counts” since no direct child was harmed.
But let’s be clear:
Creating or possessing these images requires sexualised thinking about children. That in itself is dangerous.
Normalisation feeds escalation. What starts as “just images” can progress into grooming or seeking real material.
Demand drives supply. Even if AI is used, offenders are often still searching for or sharing real CSAM.
As one TikTok commenter put it:
“If anyone looks or creates anything that is looking at a child in a sexual lens, it should automatically be flagged to police and immediately dealt with.”
It’s not the tool (AI or Photoshop) that matters. It’s the intent.
The Gap in the Law
Part of the issue is that technology is racing ahead of legislation.
One commenter noted:
“The laws surrounding AI are far behind. Until there are clear regulations addressing AI-related abuse, judges can’t deliver appropriate sentences as no actual real human was involved.”
This is true. In Australia and many other countries, AI-generated CSAM sits in a legal grey area. But predators know this, and they’re exploiting it.
Until the law catches up, sentences like this will continue to send a weak message that creating sexualised depictions of children is not treated as the serious crime it is.
Why This Matters for Child Safety
Here at At The Ark, this case is exactly why we do what we do. Because protecting children isn’t just about reacting to harm, it’s about challenging the culture and systems that enable abuse to be minimised.
If society shrugs off AI-generated CSAM as “not real,” we miss the point. Every image reflects a dangerous fixation. Every offender represents a risk. Every weak sentence undermines the fight against child sexual abuse.
What Needs to Change
Clear legislation that criminalises AI-generated CSAM in the same way as real material.
Stronger sentencing that matches the seriousness of the crime and protects children.
Ongoing education for judges, lawyers, and the public on how technology is being misused by offenders.
Better support for survivors and families, because cases like this retraumatise those who’ve lived through abuse.
AI doesn’t make child abuse “less real.” It’s still rooted in exploitation. It’s still dangerous. And until laws reflect that, children remain at risk. It’s not enough to call these crimes “abhorrent.” Action must match the words. Every child deserves better.
A key sign of emotional security is the ability to stay calm during stressful situations. For instance, imagine you and your partner have a disagreement about weekend plans. Instead of raising their voice or walking away, your partner takes a deep breath and says, “I understand you’re frustrated. Let’s talk about it.” This calm response allows both of you to express your feelings without escalation, fostering a peaceful environment where issues can be resolved constructively.
