The two photos started out as typical teenage selfies: looking into the mirror, fully clothed. But once online predators had got hold of those pictures and ran them through an AI imaging tool, they had become the basis for extreme pornography videos.

These examples come from the Report Remove service, which allows children who have had explicit pictures of themselves distributed without their consent to flag the image confidentially and have it blocked or taken down from social media. Due to breakthroughs in AI, and the wide availability of AI models and nudification apps, some under-18s are becoming victims without even being in contact with criminals.

These two victims show why the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) and the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a child safety watchdog, have issued guidance telling parents to consider limiting visibility of family pictures by, for instance, making your social media profile private and just sharing photos of your children on “close friends” groups.

Both organisations say they are not telling parents what to do but want them to be aware of the problem and what action to take. The data shows AI is an increasing source of child sexual abuse material. The amount of AI-generated child sexual abuse material [CSAM] found online rose by 14% last year, according to the IWF, which identified 8,029 AI-made images and videos of realistic CSAM in 2025.

Dan Sexton, the IWF’s chief technology officer, says he feels “very uncomfortable” about telling parents not to put pictures of their children on public display but feels he has no other option. There is not enough protection against this technology, he says.

The UK government is bringing in restrictions, such as making it illegal to possess, create or distribute AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material. It is also giving tech companies and child protection agencies the power to test whether artificial intelligence tools can produce child abuse images.

Sexton acknowledges the long-term solution cannot be banishing photos from public social media accounts. He wants legislation for AI models that requires them to be “safe by design”, a principle voiced by online safety campaigners who want social media platforms to be built responsibly with user wellbeing as a core aim. “People use the term safety by design but I am not seeing that here,” he says.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has been approached for comment.

Sexton says paedophiles are using a variety of AI tools in combination to create images and videos, including “open source” AI models that can be freely downloaded and adjusted by users.

The IWF says that already it is proving impossible to distinguish between real photos of child sexual abuse and AI-generated material. Such content is also illegal in the UK but it means authorities can struggle to distinguish between victims who are in real-life danger and deepfakes. AI videos can still be distinguished from reality by IWF analysts, says Sexton, but generally the only way to be sure is seeing if paedophiles are taking credit for specific images on the dark web.

“The only way we know is when we see the creators pointing out what they have created,” he says, adding that being able to discern AI from reality might be an ongoing struggle.

“It’s a problem that needs to be solved. But I don’t know if it can be solved to the level of accuracy that we need because the technology keeps on changing,” he says.

Lorna Sinclair, a child sexual abuse education manager at the NCA, says the agency’s new guidance is aimed at flagging a danger that many parents and carers do not know exists. Offenders are repeating an all too familiar trait of jumping on technological changes first.

“We are still learning about AI as a society and how it is used in every day life,” she says. “We are learning about the benefits but also about how this technology can be abused. The reality is that offenders will always be early adopters of technological advances.”