Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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]

k1121j said:
Give the actual list of apps was not released i'm guessing you know something I don't.
Click to expand...
These apps use AI to undress or nudify people, aiding in the creation of deepfake porn without any safeguards. I'm not sure defending such apps is something you'd want to do in good conscience, but there's really no legitimate use to it. Unless you have a compelling reason why these apps should be reinstated and used, in which case, do tell.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Jumpthesnark, eifelbube, I7guy and 1 other person
Charlie Bonesx said:
It matters because your entire argument rests on the idea that these apps have some legitimate use

If you cannot come up with a single legitimate use then you have no argument

If you actually can come up with a legitimate use, then you surely are confident enough in it’s legitimacy that you can defend it

I might disagree, but I would have to concede that you have a valid argument and I merely disagree with a premise

As it stands now you simply have no argument at all

Also, you keep using “horses for courses wrong”
Click to expand...
Your entire premise revolves around there is not a useful way to operate the product. I already made some references earlier in prior posts. However I reject your premise in the same way you reject mine.

I can see some uses for such a product, one example is just to use it. That’s a use case.

Anyway as I keep saying “horses for courses”

As it stands now you haven’t proven your case and I proved mine.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: eifelbube
k1121j said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes in fact there are laws, in the United States at least, that are specific to people being killed with a car.

For example, vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter are all laws related to the killing of another person by using a motor vehicle. Because the use of vehicles is already regulated by laws which include standards for their sale, registration, use and those who are allowed to use them.

Sorry, you’ve provided such an obviously poor example.

As for guns, those are regulated too. And if someone uses a firearm to kill others, there are laws that are specific to the weapon itself (assault weapon bans, or the use of a silencer, for example) as well as other laws that govern access to the weapon (red flag laws, child access prevention laws, domestic violence or other restraining orders) which may come into play, depending on the specifics of the case.

So maybe in the case of these apps, just like with guns and cars and rat poison and other examples that have been used in the increasingly tedious replies by some in this thread, society has recognized that not all apps are good or safe and that maybe they deserve the extra scrutiny and regulation they are receiving, simply because of what they are. And that those who provide commercial access to apps, most notably through through the creation and maintenance of the App Store and the Google Play Store, have every right to say no thanks, they’re not allowed here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samplasion and eifelbube
Jumpthesnark said:
Yes in fact there are laws, in the United States at least, that are specific to people being killed with a car.

For example, vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter are all laws related to the killing of another person by using a motor vehicle. Because the use of vehicles is already regulated by laws which include standards for their sale, registration, use and those who are allowed to use them.

Sorry, you’ve provided such an obviously poor example.

As for guns, those are regulated too. And if someone uses a firearm to kill others, there are laws that are specific to the weapon itself (assault weapon bans, or the use of a silencer, for example) as well as other laws that govern access to the weapon (red flag laws, child access prevention laws, domestic violence or other restraining orders) which may come into play, depending on the specifics of the case.

So maybe in the case of these apps, just like with guns and cars and rat poison and other examples that have been used in the increasingly tedious replies by some in this thread, society has recognized that not all apps are good or safe and that maybe they deserve the extra scrutiny and regulation they are receiving, simply because of what they are. And that those who provide commercial access to apps, most notably through through the creation and maintenance of the App Store and the Google Play Store, have every right to say no thanks, they’re not allowed here.
Click to expand...
Aren’t there also laws regarding deepfakes? Regulated doesn’t mean free from bad intents and that’s the point. The courts struck down NJ ban on assault weapons. I would argue these assault weapons in the hands of civilians have as much utility as these deep fake apps, and yet I can envision a use case for these deep fake apps and none for ownership of assault weapons - except the second amendment.
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: eifelbube
I7guy said:
Aren’t there also laws regarding deepfakes? Regulated doesn’t mean free from bad intents and that’s the point. The courts struck down NJ ban on assault weapons. I would argue these assault weapons in the hands of civilians have as much utility as these deep fake apps, and yet I can envision a Latinate use case for these deep fake apps and none for ownership of assault weapons - except the second amendment.
Click to expand...

There's so much word salad here that I don't even know where to begin. What's your point?
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: eifelbube and I7guy
eifelbube said:
Not enough to justify App Store availability of a software program with abuse potential. The societal responsibility of protecting individuals from harm outweighs the loss of opportunity for fun. Egocentric indulgence is not a legitimate use case.
Click to expand...
Your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Like everyone commenting in this thread.
 
eifelbube said:
So why did Apple comply with the order to take down the ICEblock app, thus preventing people just to use it? Assuming (!) that you supported the ICEblock removal: It was justified because the order came from higher up than a City Attorney’s office?
Click to expand...
You would have to ask Apple. It probably was justified because national security is my guess. Now you can say that doesn’t matter or the legitimate use justifies the end. But that would be your opinion.
 
Jumpthesnark said:
Yes in fact there are laws, in the United States at least, that are specific to people being killed with a car.

For example, vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter are all laws related to the killing of another person by using a motor vehicle. Because the use of vehicles is already regulated by laws which include standards for their sale, registration, use and those who are allowed to use them.

Sorry, you’ve provided such an obviously poor example.

As for guns, those are regulated too. And if someone uses a firearm to kill others, there are laws that are specific to the weapon itself (assault weapon bans, or the use of a silencer, for example) as well as other laws that govern access to the weapon (red flag laws, child access prevention laws, domestic violence or other restraining orders) which may come into play, depending on the specifics of the case.

So maybe in the case of these apps, just like with guns and cars and rat poison and other examples that have been used in the increasingly tedious replies by some in this thread, society has recognized that not all apps are good or safe and that maybe they deserve the extra scrutiny and regulation they are receiving, simply because of what they are. And that those who provide commercial access to apps, most notably through through the creation and maintenance of the App Store and the Google Play Store, have every right to say no thanks, they’re not allowed here.
Click to expand...
Extra scrutiny is much different than a ban. As I was saying
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back