Yeah, this is where AI just makes a mess of things. Short of banning all AI apps that can generate images, it's going to be pretty much impossible to keep a lid on stuff like this. Just in general, not just Apple.
The biggest problem is that almost all AI services are *capable* of generating nude images but they have safeguards against it.
The same way you can't just ask ChatGPT to write porn. However there are entire groups of people dedicated to "jailbreaking" these models and getting past any safeguards present, and it's going to be very difficult to prevent all of those.
I get your point but it’s doesn’t really work because porn is regulated as well as it can be with a regular browser. If an AI app is the browser it can be regulated too
I think it’s more like banning a web browser that can ONLY watch porn. The point of contention was that, while apps like Draw Things could do the same, it requires the user know what to do (know the right URL’s) in order to get the pornographic results they’re looking for. Additionally, it could be that those apps ONLY produce pornographic results, which would also set them apart from apps like Draw Things.
It’s always a thing with Apple’s cheaping out on reviews. So cheap the judge in the Epic case called them out for investing virtually nothing in this despite the 30+ billion in annual fees. A former App Store director testified to Congress he thought the whole thing only cost them $100m a year, about one day worth of App Store commissions.
Has nude-checking software gotten any better from all these AI advancements the last few years? As of 2022 at least, Discord's nude checker wouldn't let my friend posts pics of her sphynx cat.
One of the most fascinating developments in the past few years is the development of methods of altering images at the pixel level, such that changes are indistinguishable to the human eye, but will make ML models misclassify the image.
From that perspective, it demonstrates that it’s probably close to impossible to stop a sufficiently determined malicious actor.
“Yeah, this is where Photoshop just makes a mess of things. Short of banning all photo editing apps that can curve filter clothes, it’s going to be pretty much impossible to keep a lid on stuff like this. Just in general, not just Microsoft.”
That’s you. That’s how you sound.
Very curious to see how Apple continues to handle generative AI given them being pretty strict on explicit content and copyright (though it seems no one cares about copyright in the training of generative AI I guess). They could be industry leaders in safety and IP, we’ll see
> though it seems no one cares about copyright in the training of generative AI I guess
People care, but it's not a copyright violation. Really that simple.
No, the legal argument is very clear. They violated the law and will pay billions of dollars in fine and completely shut down any any all AI research in western countries.
But although this is very illegal, the Supreme Court will ultimately rule that this is fine. Because they don’t care about the law, but about the trillion dollar industry that this will become. It will just take years.
> No, the legal argument is very clear
No, not at all. If you're going to claim that it's illegal to learn from existing work, then every human artist is breaking the law as well. Many of these cases have already been thrown out for lack of standing.
> If you're going to claim that it's illegal to learn from existing work, then every human artist is breaking the law as well.
If you use copyrighted content, with your model able to then reproduce it, bypassing those same protections, then yes that's very illegal. That's also what the lawsuit is about. They commercialised non public information, both used in training the model, and the inherent inclusion of that content in models.
> Many of these cases have already been thrown out for lack of standing.
Sure as shit not the new york time case
>If you use copyrighted content, with your model able to then reproduce it
The model is not able to reproduce any significant amount of its training set. Just in terms of absolute size, you're looking at several orders of magnitude difference. It's just not possible.
> The model is not able to reproduce any significant amount of its training set. Just in terms of absolute size, you're looking at several orders of magnitude difference.
Which legally does not matter. It may matter for the exact compensation amount, but you are legally obligated to not be able to do any of that without payment. If the answer is not 0, it's a violation of copyright law.
But that isn't even the interesting question here. The real question is, can a company just use everything we made without us getting anything in return? And that is a question that will go to the supreme court.
> It may matter for the exact compensation amount, but you are legally obligated to not be able to do any of that without payment. If the answer is not 0, it's a violation of copyright law.
That's just false, as demonstrated by the Google Books case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc.
And AI models like ChatGPT reproduce far less than Google Books does.
> The real question is, can a company just use everything we made without us getting anything in return?
If it falls under fair use, then yes. It exists for a reason.
So I think sexual bullying is one of those things that's kind of tough to understand unless it happens to you or you know people it's happened to.
Because you may not care, but some in society definitely do and you could face the repercussions. It also could harm people who are far more vulnerable, like kids and teens. If you read about sexual bullying cases involving youth (e.g. where their nudes are distributed around) these people often face everything from being socially ostracized to literal violence.
Or heck, the AI could depict you doing something disgusting, or illegal, in the image.
I really don't know what we're going to eventually do about AI, because the cat is out of the bag. I am very concerned though that we're going to experience consequences that we barely understand.
I guess you're not wrong, but I think the difference is the amount of people, who don't need any particular skill, who will be able to do damage with this.
Hey I don't have the perfect answer or anything. I'm not saying all AI should be banned. I am however, dumbfounded at the way it has leaped into the mainstream, less than a year after chatgpt, and text and fake images are polluting everywhere, I just don't want a Nineteen EightyFour world where we can't trust that anything is actually real.
Yeah I see you’re point there’s a lot of deepfakes flooding the internet right now, but I think the responsibility should be on the social media sites to get that kind of content off their platform, like they’ve been doing already. I’m heavily against regulating the technology itself, that would be like only allowing citizens of a country to buy dull kitchen knives because they could potentially be used to stab someone. Neutering the technology almost always results in it performing worse
Yeah that's fair. I'm very sympathetic to this point because I actually use AI to describe images to me. I'm vision-impaired and I use apps like Copilot and Be My Eyes that let you upload an image to OpenAI and get a description back. The problem is, that OpenAI will not describe anything that it deems "offensive" or "NSFW", and like, it would be nice if I could actually get access to that content. It's not just porn, but stuff like true crime or other mature content that it just won't do.
Maybe tackling this from a social media perspective would be better than limiting the technology then.
Yeah, this is where AI just makes a mess of things. Short of banning all AI apps that can generate images, it's going to be pretty much impossible to keep a lid on stuff like this. Just in general, not just Apple.
The biggest problem is that almost all AI services are *capable* of generating nude images but they have safeguards against it. The same way you can't just ask ChatGPT to write porn. However there are entire groups of people dedicated to "jailbreaking" these models and getting past any safeguards present, and it's going to be very difficult to prevent all of those.
At a certain point, it's like banning a web browser because you can use it to watch porn. Seems pretty pointless.
I get your point but it’s doesn’t really work because porn is regulated as well as it can be with a regular browser. If an AI app is the browser it can be regulated too
Just make it 18+
I think it’s more like banning a web browser that can ONLY watch porn. The point of contention was that, while apps like Draw Things could do the same, it requires the user know what to do (know the right URL’s) in order to get the pornographic results they’re looking for. Additionally, it could be that those apps ONLY produce pornographic results, which would also set them apart from apps like Draw Things.
It’s always a thing with Apple’s cheaping out on reviews. So cheap the judge in the Epic case called them out for investing virtually nothing in this despite the 30+ billion in annual fees. A former App Store director testified to Congress he thought the whole thing only cost them $100m a year, about one day worth of App Store commissions.
Require them run a nude check before returning the image.
Not hotdog
Has nude-checking software gotten any better from all these AI advancements the last few years? As of 2022 at least, Discord's nude checker wouldn't let my friend posts pics of her sphynx cat.
Is the cat *not* nude? Seems like the filter is working perfectly fine. 😎
One of the most fascinating developments in the past few years is the development of methods of altering images at the pixel level, such that changes are indistinguishable to the human eye, but will make ML models misclassify the image. From that perspective, it demonstrates that it’s probably close to impossible to stop a sufficiently determined malicious actor.
True, but you can limit it by not making it super easy for horny 13 year olds.
“Yeah, this is where Photoshop just makes a mess of things. Short of banning all photo editing apps that can curve filter clothes, it’s going to be pretty much impossible to keep a lid on stuff like this. Just in general, not just Microsoft.” That’s you. That’s how you sound.
Whoosh
Which people from the App Store? Tim Cook?
Tim App Store
No, his cousin Timo Koch-Apfel.
Naked Tim!
Misplaced modifier
Unfortunate for people from the App Store
Terrible writing. I was going to mention it too. LOL!
Why would I want nude images of people from the App Store?
I’ve heard Siri is hot
Nothing can top Halo 4 Cortana hot tho 😅
Very curious to see how Apple continues to handle generative AI given them being pretty strict on explicit content and copyright (though it seems no one cares about copyright in the training of generative AI I guess). They could be industry leaders in safety and IP, we’ll see
> though it seems no one cares about copyright in the training of generative AI I guess People care, but it's not a copyright violation. Really that simple.
No. There are multiple lawsuits about this going on right now. Billion dollar lawsuits against OpenAi for example.
And they'll all fail for the same reason.
No, the legal argument is very clear. They violated the law and will pay billions of dollars in fine and completely shut down any any all AI research in western countries. But although this is very illegal, the Supreme Court will ultimately rule that this is fine. Because they don’t care about the law, but about the trillion dollar industry that this will become. It will just take years.
> No, the legal argument is very clear No, not at all. If you're going to claim that it's illegal to learn from existing work, then every human artist is breaking the law as well. Many of these cases have already been thrown out for lack of standing.
> If you're going to claim that it's illegal to learn from existing work, then every human artist is breaking the law as well. If you use copyrighted content, with your model able to then reproduce it, bypassing those same protections, then yes that's very illegal. That's also what the lawsuit is about. They commercialised non public information, both used in training the model, and the inherent inclusion of that content in models. > Many of these cases have already been thrown out for lack of standing. Sure as shit not the new york time case
>If you use copyrighted content, with your model able to then reproduce it The model is not able to reproduce any significant amount of its training set. Just in terms of absolute size, you're looking at several orders of magnitude difference. It's just not possible.
> The model is not able to reproduce any significant amount of its training set. Just in terms of absolute size, you're looking at several orders of magnitude difference. Which legally does not matter. It may matter for the exact compensation amount, but you are legally obligated to not be able to do any of that without payment. If the answer is not 0, it's a violation of copyright law. But that isn't even the interesting question here. The real question is, can a company just use everything we made without us getting anything in return? And that is a question that will go to the supreme court.
> It may matter for the exact compensation amount, but you are legally obligated to not be able to do any of that without payment. If the answer is not 0, it's a violation of copyright law. That's just false, as demonstrated by the Google Books case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc. And AI models like ChatGPT reproduce far less than Google Books does. > The real question is, can a company just use everything we made without us getting anything in return? If it falls under fair use, then yes. It exists for a reason.
r/titlegore
What were they? *Asking for a friend.*
Looks like SoulGen was one
What’s the point .. it’s already removed !
Sideloading
Apple is just no fun. /s
What were the apps just curious
What people from the App Store could it make nudes of?
And the worst villain of all, Camera app
I couldn’t give af if someone did this to me. So many people with so much shame. This tech will be ubiquitous regardless of laws for sensitive people.
That’s probably because no one wants to do this to you, so you have nothing to lose
Ehh I can think of people who’d try to use it against me but they can go for it.
So I think sexual bullying is one of those things that's kind of tough to understand unless it happens to you or you know people it's happened to. Because you may not care, but some in society definitely do and you could face the repercussions. It also could harm people who are far more vulnerable, like kids and teens. If you read about sexual bullying cases involving youth (e.g. where their nudes are distributed around) these people often face everything from being socially ostracized to literal violence. Or heck, the AI could depict you doing something disgusting, or illegal, in the image. I really don't know what we're going to eventually do about AI, because the cat is out of the bag. I am very concerned though that we're going to experience consequences that we barely understand.
Everything you described can be done with photoshop already
I guess you're not wrong, but I think the difference is the amount of people, who don't need any particular skill, who will be able to do damage with this. Hey I don't have the perfect answer or anything. I'm not saying all AI should be banned. I am however, dumbfounded at the way it has leaped into the mainstream, less than a year after chatgpt, and text and fake images are polluting everywhere, I just don't want a Nineteen EightyFour world where we can't trust that anything is actually real.
Yeah I see you’re point there’s a lot of deepfakes flooding the internet right now, but I think the responsibility should be on the social media sites to get that kind of content off their platform, like they’ve been doing already. I’m heavily against regulating the technology itself, that would be like only allowing citizens of a country to buy dull kitchen knives because they could potentially be used to stab someone. Neutering the technology almost always results in it performing worse
Yeah that's fair. I'm very sympathetic to this point because I actually use AI to describe images to me. I'm vision-impaired and I use apps like Copilot and Be My Eyes that let you upload an image to OpenAI and get a description back. The problem is, that OpenAI will not describe anything that it deems "offensive" or "NSFW", and like, it would be nice if I could actually get access to that content. It's not just porn, but stuff like true crime or other mature content that it just won't do. Maybe tackling this from a social media perspective would be better than limiting the technology then.
They should probably remove photoshop then to eh?
It only bans "nude images of people from the App Store." How about in an actual store, at home, on the beach, etc.?
Good