I don’t know why you put image and imagination in the same place. It is different. Imagination is the result of thinking. Image is the result of action. We can imagine killing people. Nobody harmed. But killing people in real life?

Image is not the result of action, it's the projection of imagination into the physical world.

In your example, the correct parallel isn't killing people in real life, it's making an image of killing people. The ethics of making such images are debatable, but they already permeate our society without AI.

How do you know? The whole point of a deepfake is that it is indistinguishable from a photo of a real life event.

I can imagine a person killing other people. I can draw a person killing other people. I can make a computer draw a person killing other people. In all three cases, zero people were harmed.

But if you if you spread the image in a forum of haters, you may incite someone to kill that person. That's why there are laws against harassment. The danger is not the existence of an image, it is the act of communication that has consequences.

I quite like the concept of information hazards for reasoning about these kinds of risk.

They say music can alter moods and talk to you. Well, can it load a gun up for you and cock it too? Well, if it can, then the next time you assault a dude, just tell the judge it was my fault and I'll get sued!

hate crime is already a crime. If someone were to want to incite hate, they could do it today just as easily as a hypothetical future where an AI generated image is readily available.

So the problem isn't the AI, it's the forum of haters. Restricting AI usage, in the hope of not having someone use it to incite hate is too roundabout a way to achieve any significant result, while everybody pays a high cost (of not being free to use such an AI as they see fit).