Post by @psycotica0@lemmy.ca

2026-09-29 04:14 UTC

Philosophy Question Time 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… 😴

Replies (5)

@cattywampas@lemmy.world 2026-09-29 04:20

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.

Open ##4941856
@Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2026-09-29 04:22

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.

Open ##4941872
@MrNesser@lemmy.world 2026-09-29 05:51

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.

Open ##4944379
@OriginEnergySux@lemmy.world 2026-09-29 06:16

Well yeah bro lol think about it for like 2 more seconds 😂

Open ##4944757
@NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2026-09-29 06:53

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.

Open ##4946423