While I guess an uncensored language model could create something mildly illegal, an uncensored image model could probably generate highly illegal content. There is a trade-off between being uncensored and the (degree of) illegality of the content.
I'm very curious what text a personally owned and operated network could generate that would be unambiguously illegal in a liberal democracy.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_fictional_porn...
That'd be horrible lawmaking.
If you don't trust Fox enough, their article does link to the text of the bill, directly by the Irish government: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2022/105/
I'd link to a more trustworthy source, like the New York Times, but they are curiously silent on this bill.
§ 130 Incitement to hatred (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005, 2015)[38][39]
(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:
incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.[38][39]
[…]
(3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.[38][39]
(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner which violates the dignity of the victims by approving of, glorifying or justifying National Socialist tyranny and arbitrary rule incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine.[38][39]According to German law - distributing Nazi-related materials in private messages is a crime too.
Germany is a country where this happens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/09/09/pimmelgate-g... A dude insulted a politician and the cops raided his house.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/germanys-laws-ant...
It's about the ease of acquiring it.
Maybe if we distribute the material it should be illegal then. But otherwise it's not the state's right to police what art we are creating in our own homes, period.
Thankfully, because it's run locally and not on the cloud, there is little the government can do about it, so it's very hard to enforce.
UPDATE: No, that was a joke. I was referring to imagery, which fictional or not can definitely be illegal in the USA even if you draw it yourself in your private journal.
I'm not sure if you can be prosecuted in the USA for anything you write down yourself and don't somehow disseminate. (Although "doing it with computer" might also change the equation... US laws get pretty weird.)
Calls for violence against corrupt and powerful people who abuse others on a daily basis.
Classified or confidential information such as security plans for the previously mentioned powerful abusers. Also including educational and medical records.
Ways to circumvent censorship (DMCA.)
Releasing true fact against court orders.
Publishing factually correct evidence of powerful people raping kids (CSAM.)
Publishing decryption keys that allow government information to be accessed.
Software without FBI backdoors installed.
Information that encouraged disobedience to current law (e.g., sovereign citizens.)
Trade secrets.
Communicating anything over radio frequency without the correct FCC license.
Trade Secrets are basically always written down, they are not illegal to communicate, but doing so may violate a contract which would be a civil matter not a criminal matter. In the cases that the contract is either determined not to be binding or expired or was otherwise nullified, communicating trade secrets is an expected outcome. In fact, what makes something a trade secret is that a business takes actions and expends efforts to prevent its communication, as opposed to publishing it openly as a patent and getting legal governmental protections.