91–100 of 336 posts
Which requires more computation: a real-time deepfake or real-time deepfake detection? That will determine the future balance of power.
You don't need to detect a deepfake in the same time as it takes to generate one, do you?
> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…
I work at Axis, which makes surveillance cameras.[0] This comment is my own, and is not on behalf of the company. I'm using a throwaway account because I'd rather not be identified (and because surveillance is quite controversial here). Axis has developed a way to cryptographically sign video, using TPMs (Trusted Platform Module) built into the cameras and embedding the signature into the h.264 stream.[1] The video c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue there is a moral imperative to create and release tools like this as free and open source software so that anyone has access to them and can choose whether to use them, rather than only sophisticated and well resourced adversaries. IMO the creators should feel good about their actions, even if they feel bad or apprehensive about the direction of the world because this technology exists at all.
Does this apply to nuclear weapons? To biological weapons? “Tool is expensive” is a real, effective deterrent to frivolous use of a tool. There’s a reason we pool resources into governments, which is explicitly so we (via a government) have capabilities that we (as individuals) don’t have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does this apply to nuclear weapons? To biological weapons? “Tool is expensive” is a real, effective deterrent to frivolous use of a tool. There’s a reason we pool resources into governments, which is explicitly so we (via a government) have capabilities that we (as individuals) don’t have.
No, but it does apply to the distribution of slippery slopes. The OP specifically said tools "like this"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue there is a moral imperative to create and release tools like this as free and open source software so that anyone has access to them and can choose whether to use them, rather than only sophisticated and well resourced adversaries. IMO the creators should feel good about their actions, even if they feel bad or apprehensive about the direction of the world because this technology exists at all.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to give everyone a gun, but I do like the argument that the disadvantaged have the same opportunity to pull a trigger. I hope humanity learns wisdom as quickly as we innovate. We've made it this far..
Serious question. What is the chance this video has been deepfaked? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENlL-Uru-cM&ab_channel=CNBCT...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue there is a moral imperative to create and release tools like this as free and open source software so that anyone has access to them and can choose whether to use them, rather than only sophisticated and well resourced adversaries. IMO the creators should feel good about their actions, even if they feel bad or apprehensive about the direction of the world because this technology exists at all.
I can’t see a way this technology could be used defensively. Wide access just leads to more abuse. There’s no principle by which it serves some sort of justice to make some crime more accessible. It’s surprising how often this argument is made compared to, say, equal-opportunity access to fancy cars or good housing.
That isn't a defensive use!?
> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…
What's the difference between this and Metasploit, sqlmap, ... ? Not saying you're wrong, it's just that while these tools have valid and legal uses (pentesting) they're also used in black hat scenarios and one could say the same about DOT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a legal disclaimer, not a moral one.
I think that's part of what makes me uneasy about this - it's a solely legal disclaimer for something with a moral dimension, and it reads to me like the abdication of responsibility, rather than just a shield against litigation.
We're software developers, not kindergarten teachers.
How do you feel about Sqlite's code of conduct? Because if you don't like that, then you shouldn't be making moral statements in your own repositories.