I know a teen who died in a car accident.
Some other drove his car on the crowd.
We should definitely ban cars
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Google Hit With Demand to Pull AI 'Nudify' Apps [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Some other drove his car on the crowd.
We should definitely ban cars
Jumpthesnark
macrumors 68000
Yes, if only society had laws that provide standards for which people are allowed to drive cars, what happens to them when they break those and other laws, and the power to rescind a person's ability to legally use those cars.
If only society had laws that regulate things like mutually agreed-upon standards and features of cars for the safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians. And features that are banned.
If only drivers were responsible for the upkeep of their cars to ensure they meet standards of traffic safety on some kind of an annual basis, perhaps something that required a registration.
If only society had specially trained government officials dedicated to ensuring that people upheld those laws, and if they were suspected of breaking those laws, a special "traffic court" where those accused of violations could plead their case and, if found in violation, be punished.
If only society had things like "social host" laws that can hold people legally responsible if they over-serve alcohol to someone to the point of intoxication, and then allow them to get behind the wheel. Or if the person being served is underage.
The "but but but what about cars and drivers" is a bad faith argument.
Jumpthesnark
macrumors 68000
A strawman question about painting won't help. The apps being discussed and the laws related to them have to do with producing nonconsensual but realistic-looking deepfake nudes, which generally are based on real photographs of real people as the source material.
Asking about consent to be painted has nothing to do with the topic at hand, the apps being used or the laws and regulations related to them.
TruthAboveAllElse
macrumors 6502a
It does, as it points out the work that “non consensual” and the connotations that go with it are doing in discussions about this.
It’s also pretty easy to imagine how tools like this could be used in provocative political artwork.
Jumpthesnark
macrumors 68000
Yes, because nonconsensual is the problem here. That these and similar apps are being used to make deepfake CSAM and revenge porn. That's not a connotation.
If that's why you like these apps and want to see them defended, then just say it. The rest of the arguments seem like a fig leaf.
Dr McKay
macrumors 601
Probably not in real life, but they certainly were online. I remember in the news article on here about the UK threatening to ban X/Grok because people were using Grok to make child porn and Elon refused to do anything about it.
Some of the comments were staggering. I’ve seen the UK government called a “nanny state” for a lot of reasons but never did I think “trying to stop people making creating child porn” would be one of them.
TruthAboveAllElse
macrumors 6502a
I don’t like or use these apps. I don’t like Nazism either, but I still am glad that the US has some of the strongest freedom of speech and expression protections. I do think that non consensual here is being used as if an image that has your likeness was the same as being sexually violated. It isn’t. Harassment is harassment, and should be prosecuted as harassment. Extortion is extortion and should be prosecuted as extortion.
I7guy
macrumors Westmere
Can you define nonconsenual? Pictures taken in a public place are protected by first amendment rights. So you take a picture of some random person and post it on the internet. Is it nonconsenual? Or are you referring to the california and other states deep fake bills? Are you referring to political, because that is something else. And I exclude CSAM from this question, because that should be dealt with entirely more harshly.
Last edited:
Jumpthesnark
macrumors 68000
If you only ask me to define "nonconsensual," you're missing a crucial part of the phrase and removing it from the context you referred to: "to make nonconsensual nudes of others."
The ability to make an image that appears to be a nude of a person that was made without their consent.
An image taken of a person on the street is one thing under the law. Using an app to combine a photo of a person's face with either another person's nude image or an AI-generated image that appears to be a nude body, in order to make an image that appears to be a nude image of the first person is something else entirely.
And yes, part of the discussion is the laws passed in many states that ban the creation of deepfake nudes of others without their consent.
Jumpthesnark
macrumors 68000
I didn't know looking at Pornography was "unsafe". Not that I'm saying Apple should carry pornographic apps in the App Store (though quite frankly, what do they think people do/what kind of photos are traded on Apps like Grindr and the like?), but I just hate this conflation of pornography with "not safe". Good old puritanical America (where the overwhelming majority of pornography is produced).
frenchcamp49er
macrumors 6502a
Yet California Democrats will allow a pedophile to run for any public office
But you can get it on the side now! Get it wink wink Side-Loading the apps.
This will never end.
This will never end.
Would you extend it to Photoshop, After Effects, etc?
After all they can be used to swap faces of people too, create forfeit currency fakes to later be printed, fake environments, etc.
These can also be used to make something fake pass as real, in fact they do a better job at it… I mean Hollywood uses exactly that all the time in all the movies we might enjoy and love (since decades ago).
So, ban it from all the stores too?
ArtOfWarfare
macrumors G3
Not really, no. I have a daughter who is fortunately young enough for me to not worry about this stuff yet, but if someone was using Photoshop to make nudes of my daughter to harass her, you know what I'd do? Hold the child and their parents responsible, not Adobe for making Photoshop.
turbineseaplane
macrumors Penryn
Torrent clients have legitimate use cases and yet Apple keeps those out.
An App having some legitimate use cases is not rationale enough to allow it in Apple's App Store, at least not based upon the precedent they've already set.
An App having some legitimate use cases is not rationale enough to allow it in Apple's App Store, at least not based upon the precedent they've already set.