Good news! If you’ve ever used a controversial image generator — congrats, you’re now the criminal! Meanwhile, the people who built the tool? They’re off sipping champagne in Silicon Valley while you’re being fitted for an orange jumpsuit because you dared to type “undressed woman in oil painting style.”
That’s right: rather than regulate the creators of software capable of pumping out dodgy AI images, the government has decided to go after Joe Blogs, the clueless guy in his bedroom who thought “prompt engineering” just meant typing weird stuff after midnight.
💣 Build It, Sell It, Blame the Buyer
This is policy-making by facepalm. It’s the legal equivalent of letting the inventor of dynamite open a fireworks stand while arresting everyone who lights a sparkler. The logic? “If you build a dangerous tool, that’s innovation. If you use it, that’s a felony.” 🎯
Let’s be real: the tech bros behind this software know what it can do. It’s not an accident when it outputs an anime pin-up or “artistic” nudes of famous people with suspiciously accurate cheekbones. But instead of tightening laws on them, lawmakers have chosen to throw the book at… some guy in Slough with a Reddit tab open.
It’s not about morality. It’s about optics. Punishing software creators is complex, might involve rich people, and would require understanding how algorithms work. Punishing users? That’s easy, populist, and makes for a great headline — “CREEP JAILED FOR AI FILTH” — while Big Tech cashes in behind the scenes.
Should the builders of digital dynamite really get immunity while users get charged for lighting the fuse? Shouldn’t the code-creators face consequences too? Drop your fury, snark, or counterblast in the blog comments — not just on some forum with 12 likes. 🤖🔥
👇 Comment, like, and share if you’ve ever made a meme, mid-journeyed into trouble, or just want tech law that makes actual sense.
The sharpest takes will appear in the next magazine issue. 🎯📝
Chameleon Magazine 
Leave a comment