When you say should hav, do you mean in the legal sense, or that you agree with such laws? I can't fathom being ok with any book being banned, but usually when I cannot understand a perspective I'm missing something pretty big. So I'm actually asking, not trying to start a pointless Internet debate.

The arguments for and against end up similar to those for and against banning drawn or AI generated depiction of csam. No actual children are harmed, it's artistic expression, moving the topic out of sight won't solve it, and any ban will also catch works that speak out against sexual abuse. On the other hand any such content risks playing into pedophilia fetishes (and some content simply does so very openly), and so far research is (very lightly) in favor of withholding any such content from "afflicted people" rather than providing a "safe outlet". Though this is debated and part of ongoing research

I think one additional objection to AI generated depictions is that photo-realistic AI generated content gives plausible deniability to those who create/possess real life CSAM.

And it would make authorities waste time finding the real csam to investigate or mistakenly investigating AI csam (under the hypothetical that AI csam is decriminalized).

I deliberately didn't want to get into that. It's not as if my opinion makes much of a difference anyway. But I do want us to be consistent, and I want as little as possible to be decided by "I know it when I see it" judges.

Yes, that is where I get stuck. Of there was a deterministically harmful book, like the play ,"the king in yellow", which drove every reader violently mad, then I would want it banned. There are unquestionably books and ideas that are statistically harmful to the society most of us want to live in. I just don't trust anyone to be the arbiter of what gets included in that category. But I live in a low trust society, so maybe it is a solvable problem?