The author of the article is right not to believe this claim. The author can say that their software was intended for whatever noble uses they want. We know from experience that software has mainstream off-label use.
Is BitTorrent really a tool for downloading community content like open films and Linux distros? Because that’s what the creators say it’s for. It’s not untrue.
Is Jellyfin or Plex a tool for organizing your ripped collection of CDs, DVDs, and Blu-rays? That’s what the developers say. It’s not untrue
Is Tor a tool for protecting dissidents? That’s what they say it is. It really is that. But is that all it is?
This tool might be useful for identifying sex trafficking victims, just as a nudifying app might be useful for identifying victims of involuntary pornography.
But on the other side of this is that nudifying apps are more likely to be used to create involuntary pornography, and makeup-removal apps are more likely to be used to harass women.
No reason to ban AI technology or anything, but no reason to pretend that tools like this aren’t used for off-label and sometimes nefarious purposes.
SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
The creator stated their intent, and the author disagreed. Does that opinion make the creator’s statement untrue?
It’s a weird situation & definitely a slippery slope. Was it his intent? I honestly can’t say. I guess it’s certainly a possibility.
I don’t think this kind of app is harmful in itself. This kind of thing can & will obviously be used/weapon used by stupid shit-heads for their own agenda, but those kind of people will utilize literally anything that exists to justify their shit-head views.