Okay, so if a bot uses AI to generate shitty grainy unflattering dick-pics and send those unsolicited to people, is that still wrong?
To receive a picture (pic) of a dick that never was, attached to a man that could never harm you, as but a figment of the bits? In the absence of implication?
I mean, ignoring whatever ethics you feel about the generation of AI images in general…
Maybe I’m too sleepy… 😴
If it’s offensive it’s still wrong. It’s not the pixels, it’s how it makes the recipient feel regardless of whether it’s an image of a real subject.
Yes, sexual harassment is unethical.
The wrongness of sending dick picks stems mostly from the feelings it could convey in the receiver, not from the implication that the pick-sender might rape them. Sending someone unsollicited hentai can also be considered sexual harassment because you’re
- Involving them in your sexual activities (here, looking at hentai) without their consent.
- Sending something that may trigger an averse reaction (shock, disgust…) again, without their concent.
Both of these things unambiguously hold true for AI-generated dick picks.
Now, in your scenario, a bot sends these images. Still, a bot must’ve been programmed to do it. The bot is just an intermediary in this situation. A person decided that random people would be involved in the sexual activity of looking at AI-generated penises, without their consent and although it may trigger an averse reaction, this person is therefore guilty of sexual harassment.
Sending unsolicited dick pics breaks concent to the receiving party and is therefore bad. Does not matter if it’s a real dic a drawn dick or an ai dick. It breaks concent.
I agree with you, but this also raises an interesting question. Personally, I wouldn’t consider it a consent issue if someone sent the usual “two circles and an oval” ‘dick’ drawing, or an eggplant emoji… Rude and crass, maybe, but not any more of a consent issue than sending any other non-sexual unsolicited pic would be, which suggests that there’s a level of caricature and lack of fidelity in which it’s okay… I wonder where that line is?
The line is where one is a drawing of a graffiti dong, the other is a hand drawn dick.
In my eyes it becomes offensive when you do more than two circles and an oval, if you draw veins and hairs then it steps into being offensive instead of just immature, but the context matters; if you draw two circles and an oval in a shape of a dick, then hand it to a stranger, that’s offensive.
Every image an ai generates is based off an image it was trained on so there is no scenario where the fick your seeing wasn’t in some way attached to a physical person.
Also it’s just fucking offensive to receive such a picture.
Let me reword your question with an entirely darker and more ‘really happening in the world’ version of what you’re asking here ;
“If grok generates CSAM at a user’s request, and then posts it on twitter, is twitter still hosting CSAM even though it isn’t a ‘real’ human?”
(The Occupied courts of america say ‘no’, but we all know why that is)
Because it’s not about how the image came to be, it’s about what the image contains.
Well yeah bro lol think about it for like 2 more seconds 😂
