Apple and Google Hit With Demand to Pull AI 'Nudify' Apps [Updated]

[Charlie Bonesx]

Not sure why there is a disconnect between this response and your prior posts but the common theme is use of technology…should tech that can be used for bad purposed be banned.

I've never said that anything should be banned just because it could be used for bad purposes. that's the disconnect

 

[eifelbube]

It could be challenged as a violation of freedom of expression at some point.

Yes, unfortunately there are enough sick people out there who would defend the freedom to do harm.

 

[eifelbube]

Guns are used to kill other people, is it the guns fault? Not in my opinion it's the person using it.
I believe a car was also use to run a person over before. Cars fault? Should we ban cars?

You are asking the wrong questions. Guns can have the purpose of self-defense, cars that of transportation. The 13 apps are to be rightly removed because they serve no reasonably significant and beneficiary purpose.

 

[eifelbube]

I've never said that anything should be banned just because it could be used for bad purposes. that's the disconnect

If an app makes it easy to cause serious harm and like these 13 apps has no significant benefits, it should be removed from the App Store. The FDA wouldn’t approve a drug that does little or nothing to treat a condition but has serious side-effects.

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Guns are used to kill other people, is it the guns fault? Not in my opinion it's the person using it.
I believe a car was also use to run a person over before. Cars fault? Should we ban cars?

Still with the "should we ban cars?" Please see my early reply about this:

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.

Using guns and cars - which have rules and standards about how they are designed and used, and who is allowed to use them - as a comparison is a tired and facile argument. Try harder.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

I didn't know looking at Pornography was "unsafe".

In the case of these apps issue isn’t “looking” at pornography. They are specifically for pornography out of other people without their consent.

In general, it is the production side of pornography that can be problematic, and seems simple enough to understand that in this case.

So in that way asking about the safety of “looking at” pornography is to invoke a strawman

Are you ok with someone making pornography featuring yourself, your kids, your spouse, your parents?

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

If an app makes it easy to cause serious harm and like these 13 apps has no significant benefits, it should be removed from the App Store. The FDA wouldn’t approve a drug that does little or nothing to treat a condition but has serious side-effects.

I completely agree

 

[turbineseaplane]

The FDA wouldn’t approve a drug that does little or nothing to treat a condition but has serious side-effects.

Well... they might do it now, but traditionally, yes, you are correct.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

Guns are used to kill other people, is it the guns fault? Not in my opinion it's the person using it.
I believe a car was also use to run a person over before. Cars fault? Should we ban cars?

You sort of doged the point their and went to the tired and juvenile guns and cars meme.

Are you ok with someone making pornography featuring yourself, your kids, your spouse, your parents and using it to intimidate and harass them? Or just post it all over the internet?

 

[groove-agent]

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?

Yes I would extend it to Photoshop. If I took a picture of you and recreated its likeness in Photoshop for the purposes of profiting on your image, to humiliate you, or to scam someone - it should not be allowed.

 

[I7guy]

You sort of doged the point their and went to the tired and juvenile guns and cars meme.

Because these tired analogies represent the crux of the issue.

Are you ok with someone making pornography featuring yourself, your kids, your spouse, your parents and using it to intimidate and harass them? Or just post it all over the internet?

No, I’m not okay with the above. I’m also not okay with my kids or spouse getting killed by guns, dying by a OWI driver etc etc. So let’s deal with all of that using the same methodology.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because these tired analogies represent the crux of the issue.

No, I’m not okay with the above. I’m also not okay with my kids or spouse getting killed by guns, dying by a OWI driver etc etc. So let’s deal with all of that using the same methodology.

Good idea. Probably why most of the industrialized world bans guns and driving under the influence.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

No, I’m not okay with the above. I’m also not okay with my kids or spouse getting killed by guns, dying by a OWI driver etc etc. So let’s deal with all of that using the same methodology.

Yes that’s exactly what we are doing.

Here’s the methodology:

Does this dangerous item have any legitimate use?

Yes: let’s make sure it is heavily regulated and controlled

No: there is no reason to allow it

Since there is no legitimate use for these apps there is no reason to allow them

I’m glad you finally agree!

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

Because these tired analogies represent the crux of the issue.

They actually completely miss the point. Guns and cars have legitimate uses. These apps do not.

 

[I7guy]

Good idea. Probably why most of the industrialized world bans guns and driving under the influence.

They may ban it, but it doesn’t stop it. They may ban these apps and it still wouldn’t stop it. But your right about one thing, guns unlike owi have a useful purpose.

 

[I7guy]

Yes that’s exactly what we are doing.

Here’s the methodology:

Does this dangerous item have any legitimate use?

Yes: let’s make sure it is heavily regulated and controlled

No: there is no reason to allow it

Since there is no legitimate use for these apps there is no reason to allow them

I’m glad you finally agree!

Yes. Let’s control photoshop. Let’s control knives. Let’s control rat poison. We agree. Easy peasy.

 

[I7guy]

They actually completely miss the point. Guns and cars have legitimate uses. These apps do not.

In your opinion they don’t have a legitimate use. But sure for the sake of argument let’s assume you are correct and ban them. Photoshop? Now that’s a tough one.

 

[BaldiMac]

They may ban it, but it doesn’t stop it. They may ban these apps and it still wouldn’t stop it.

As they say, perfect is the enemy of good. Reducing harm is good even if you can't stop it completely.

But your right about one thing, guns unlike owi have a useful purpose.

Glad to be right about something I didn't say! Thanks!

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

Yes. Let’s control photoshop. Let’s control knives. Let’s control rat poison. We agree. Easy peasy.

most jurisdictions do control knives and rat poison to various degrees. You can’t just carry a giant knife on to a plane or in to a large sporting event say. Depending on where you are there a various rules about who can buy rat poison and where and how you can apply it

But that’s neither here nor there…

You are continuing to ignore the point.

Are you afraid to answer the question:
what legitimate use do these apps have?

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

In your opinion they don’t have a legitimate use.

What legitimate use do they have?

 

[k1121j]

Still with the "should we ban cars?" Please see my early reply about this:



Using guns and cars - which have rules and standards about how they are designed and used, and who is allowed to use them - as a comparison is a tired and facile argument. Try harder.

In this case we have laws about not killing people it applies generally to people themselves not cars and guns even a fork or extension cord. I believe there is a law that says don't kill people it's not specific to each method used.

Just like these apps whatever they are if they are being used illegally by a person that person is subject to the law not the app that's being contorted to harm another individual.

 

[k1121j]

You sort of doged the point their and went to the tired and juvenile guns and cars meme.

Are you ok with someone making pornography featuring yourself, your kids, your spouse, your parents and using it to intimidate and harass them? Or just post it all over the internet?

In this case we have laws about not killing people it applies generally to people themselves not cars and guns even a fork or extension cord. I believe there is a law that says don't kill people it's not specific to each method used.

Just like these apps whatever they are if they are being used illegally by a person that person is subject to the law not the app that's being contorted to harm another individual.


A face swap app its not made for pornography its for a face swap because a person misuses the app does not mean the app should be censored, that person needs to be persecuted for mis using the app and harming a person.

Frankly even if it was for porn that still does not make a justification to censor it is porn illegal? No it's not, a sick person using it is the problem lets work about that perhaps.

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

In this case we have laws about not killing people it applies generally to people themselves not cars and guns

There are plenty of laws that apply to cars and guns themselves. Even laws specifically about not killing people with cars and guns

Just like these apps whatever they are if they are being used illegally by a person that person is subject to the law not the app that's being contorted to harm another individual.

“Whatever they are” in the case of these apps is that they are made specifically to harm other individuals. They are not “being contorted” to do such

 

[k1121j]

There are plenty of laws that apply to cars and guns themselves. Even laws specifically about not killing people with cars and guns




“Whatever they are” in the case of these apps is that they are made specifically to harm other individuals. They are not “being contorted” to do such

You quoted part of the sentence. what about forks and extension cords?

"In this case we have laws about not killing people it applies generally to people themselves not cars and guns even a fork or extension cord."

 

[Charlie Bonesx]

You quoted part of the sentence. what about forks and extension cords?

"In this case we have laws about not killing people it applies generally to people themselves not cars and guns even a fork or extension cord."

That’s really neither here nor there.

Forks and extension cords have legitimate uses

What legitimate use do these apps have?