Apple looks like it's going to age-restrict AI chat agents

AppleInsider

Based on actions it has taken against a BlueMail update, Apple looks like it's going to apply age restrictions on AI chat generators in the App Store.

Apple blocks BlueMail over content concerns

The tech giant has delayed App Store approval for an update for BlueMail over concerns that it would potentially generate inappropriate content for children.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Ben Volach, the co-founder of BlueMail developer Blix Inc. does not agree with Apple.

"Apple is making it really hard to bring innovation to our users," Volach told WSJ.

Apple, however, claims that BlueMail does not include content filtering, despite Volach's insistence that it does.

To gain approval, BlueMail would need to move its age restriction to 17 and older or include content filtering that Apple deems appropriate. Currently, the app's age restriction is set for users four and older.

Volach also stated that he believed the request was unfair, as other apps with AI features aren't subjected to the same rules.

An Apple spokesperson said developers could challenge rejections via the App Review Board process and that it's currently looking at Blix Inc's complaint.

ChatGPT has been a hot-button issue in recent times. In early February, Microsoft began integrating ChatGPT into its Bing search engine and Edge browser.

However, the experiments haven't gone off without a hitch. The results from ChatGPT searches have been a mixed bag. And, as one would expect, it hasn't taken users long to figure out how to produce outright alarming answers from the, including threats of violence against those who use the service.

However, Microsoft continues to push the integration of ChatGPT, now allowing mobile users to test out the tool with Bing mobile and Skype.

Read on AppleInsider

amar99

I really don't see how an AI app is any different than the Google app. Any app which allows access to "search what cannot be known ahead of time" is by nature risky. Seems like an overreaction just because of the amount of attention ChatGPT in particular has received recently. Are they really so dumb as to think kids wouldn't just use Safari instead to access the web version of similar tools? I just don't get the obsession with restricting apps like this.

Machradeogh

amar99 said:

I really don't see how an AI app is any different than the Google app. Any app which allows access to "search what cannot be known ahead of time" is by nature risky. Seems like an overreaction just because of the amount of attention ChatGPT in particular has received recently. Are they really so dumb as to think kids wouldn't just use Safari instead to access the web version of similar tools? I just don't get the obsession with restricting apps like this.

To my knowledge, all browsers on the App Store, including Safari, have a 17+ rating.

lkrupp

All the tech giants are reacting to the latest bullshit from Congress about ‘protecting’ our children from social media. Both Democrats and Republicans have their knives out for Section 230, thinking they will be able to dictate what does or does not appear on the internet. Unless parents are involved and in control control age restrictions mean bupkis to kids who can easily get around them. But in reality the majority of parents have neither the technical skills nor the interest in their children’s digital lives to make a difference.

The latest nonsense from Tik Tok about screen time limitations made me spray coffee out of my nose. It’s all virtue signaling with no real effect. The glass is truly half-empty.

chadbag

Applying an age restriction helps parents oversee their children’s internet use / Apple use.  I am pretty sure that the parental controls functionality can use the age categories as restrictions. 

danox

Minimum junior high school level and above? Of course, this assumes that the AI in question is really good as advertised?

dewme

When I saw the headline, my first thought was: "Finally! We're going to prevent those who are over age 70 from getting involved with yet another technology that they cannot possibly understand." At some point, and especially within political circles, there really needs to be an age limit - on the other end. At least children have parents to protect them. But grandma and grandpa are free to cause irreparable harm to not only themselves but to everyone else on the planet, for generations to come. We don't need to be amplifying the crazy stuff they could possibly do by allowing them to tap into AI. Can't we just teach them how to use a TV remote first and call that a win?

lkrupp

dewme said:

When I saw the headline, my first thought was: "Finally! We're going to prevent those who are over age 70 from getting involved with yet another technology that they cannot possibly understand." At some point, and especially within political circles, there really needs to be an age limit - on the other end. At least children have parents to protect them. But grandma and grandpa are free to cause irreparable harm to not only themselves but to everyone else on the planet, for generations to come. We don't need to be amplifying the crazy stuff they could possibly do by allowing them to tap into AI. Can't we just teach them how to use a TV remote first and call that a win?

You know what? FUCK YOU.! I’m 73 and am fully technologically literate. I probably know more about this stuff than you ever will, have been coding since I was 18 (Fortran back then) and am still the goto guy for most of my family when it comes to digital issues. Rear Admiral Grace Harper, the developer of the COBOL language, was Senior Consultant for DEC until her death at age age 85. Look her up. Ever wonder where the term “bug” came from regarding computers?

So you can take your ageism and stick up your ass. And no, my VCR clock never, ever flashed 12:00 all the time. But I’ve dealt with 30 year old morons who can't figure out how to turn on WiFi on their iPhones.

You detest old people but I bet you’re waiting for grandpa and grandma to die so you can get their money aren’t you, you despicable asshole.

DAalseth

lkrupp said:

All the tech giants are reacting to the latest bullshit from Congress about ‘protecting’ our children from social media. Both Democrats and Republicans have their knives out for Section 230, thinking they will be able to dictate what does or does not appear on the internet. Unless parents are involved and in control control age restrictions mean bupkis to kids who can easily get around them. But in reality the majority of parents have neither the technical skills nor the interest in their children’s digital lives to make a difference.

The latest nonsense from Tik Tok about screen time limitations made me spray coffee out of my nose. It’s all virtue signaling with no real effect. The glass is truly half-empty.

The reality is if they kill S230 it will mean that a LOT of stuff will just not appear on the web. Nobody will be willing to risk it. That includes AI, one of the administrators has previously said here that if it goes, these forums go to. IT’s just not worth the risk. I suspect that might be the root reason Meta is trying to branch out from FB. They know that it might become unviable in the coming years. 

LOL you think there’s anything in the glass..,

freeassociate2

lkrupp said:

dewme said:

When I saw the headline, my first thought was: "Finally! We're going to prevent those who are over age 70 from getting involved with yet another technology that they cannot possibly understand." At some point, and especially within political circles, there really needs to be an age limit - on the other end. At least children have parents to protect them. But grandma and grandpa are free to cause irreparable harm to not only themselves but to everyone else on the planet, for generations to come. We don't need to be amplifying the crazy stuff they could possibly do by allowing them to tap into AI. Can't we just teach them how to use a TV remote first and call that a win?

You know what? FUCK YOU.! I’m 73 and am fully technologically literate. I probably know more about this stuff than you ever will, have been coding since I was 18 (Fortran back then) and am still the goto guy for most of my family when it comes to digital issues. Rear Admiral Grace Harper, the developer of the COBOL language, was Senior Consultant for DEC until her death at age age 85. Look her up. Ever wonder where the term “bug” came from regarding computers?

So you can take your ageism and stick up your ass. And no, my VCR clock never, ever flashed 12:00 all the time. But I’ve dealt with 30 year old morons who can't figure out how to turn on WiFi on their iPhones.

You detest old people but I bet you’re waiting for grandpa and grandma to die so you can get their money aren’t you, you despicable asshole.

Preeeeetty sure the original poster was using sarcasm to show that these types of age restrictions are pretty arbitrary and not backed by any rational or scientific proof. So maybe slow that roll whippersnapper.

If not, well then they are a cylindrical shaped appendage, Totes McGoats.

hexclock

dewme said:

When I saw the headline, my first thought was: "Finally! We're going to prevent those who are over age 70 from getting involved with yet another technology that they cannot possibly understand." At some point, and especially within political circles, there really needs to be an age limit - on the other end. At least children have parents to protect them. But grandma and grandpa are free to cause irreparable harm to not only themselves but to everyone else on the planet, for generations to come. We don't need to be amplifying the crazy stuff they could possibly do by allowing them to tap into AI. Can't we just teach them how to use a TV remote first and call that a win?

Someday, you’ll be old, if you’re lucky. And some young kid will be making fun of you because you can’t figure out how to use the holographic mind cube. 

beowulfschmidt

freeassociate2 said:

lkrupp said:

dewme said:

When I saw the headline, my first thought was: "Finally! We're going to prevent those who are over age 70 from getting involved with yet another technology that they cannot possibly understand." At some point, and especially within political circles, there really needs to be an age limit - on the other end. At least children have parents to protect them. But grandma and grandpa are free to cause irreparable harm to not only themselves but to everyone else on the planet, for generations to come. We don't need to be amplifying the crazy stuff they could possibly do by allowing them to tap into AI. Can't we just teach them how to use a TV remote first and call that a win?

You know what? FUCK YOU.! I’m 73 and am fully technologically literate. I probably know more about this stuff than you ever will, have been coding since I was 18 (Fortran back then) and am still the goto guy for most of my family when it comes to digital issues. Rear Admiral Grace Harper, the developer of the COBOL language, was Senior Consultant for DEC until her death at age age 85. Look her up. Ever wonder where the term “bug” came from regarding computers?

So you can take your ageism and stick up your ass. And no, my VCR clock never, ever flashed 12:00 all the time. But I’ve dealt with 30 year old morons who can't figure out how to turn on WiFi on their iPhones.

You detest old people but I bet you’re waiting for grandpa and grandma to die so you can get their money aren’t you, you despicable asshole.

Preeeeetty sure the original poster was using sarcasm to show that these types of age restrictions are pretty arbitrary and not backed by any rational or scientific proof. So maybe slow that roll whippersnapper.

If not, well then they are a cylindrical shaped appendage, Totes McGoats.

Then they should have indicated such somehow, instead of hoping people would notice the difference between this and every other instance of stupidity on the internet.