261–270 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7. It's no different from religion, which was the backbone of the western civilisation for quite some time.
Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)
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…
It shouldn't be too hard to film a deepfake movie from a screen or projection that don't make it obvious it was filmed. That way, the cryptographic signature will even lend extra authenticity to the deepfake!
> 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…
No. You don't.
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.
>> Does this apply to nuclear weapons? To biological weapons? That may not be a fair comparison. Nuclear weapons are difficult to make, and using them will not go undetected - the damage would be enormous. Deep fakes are a real threat today, and anyone willing to pay for the expertise (which isn't that hard to find) can have them made. By putting this out there, deepfakes are now something almost anyone can make whic…
Now that the public knows broadly that digital manipulation is easy and they have seen it with their own eyes a ton things like that are believed less. Notice I do say less though, we still definitely have problems with misinformation being propagated with shitty-looking video/audio/photos that people should not believe in because they look/sound so inauthentic.
All that to say, these tools clearly exist. I think the public is better served by them being pervasive and well-known rather than having them be locked up in Hollywood studios, research labs, and government agencies.
> 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…
No, it is naive to pretend facial recognition is worth anything when creating tools to defeat it is a mere academic exercise in reading papers and implementing algorithms described in those.
Don't shoot the messenger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They arrest people for making and selling meth everyday. You have a bias because making deep fakes is not illegal yet. Knives are used for cooking, what alternative good do deep fakes provide?
Cardiovascular diseases are the number of cause of death worldwide BY FAR. Millions of people die every year from consuming fast food. Fast food does not really serve a purpose apart form being tasty/quick/cheap. You could fulfill your dietary needs much better with different food. Should McDonald's be banned? I do not think so. Anything can be misused. To answer your question about what "good" uses there are for dee…
Yes. I believe it should.
Regarding the deep fakes being good, I meant societal good. Not just fun tacky things that some people have a good time with. What social value does it bring to the world? We can do everything we need to without deep fakes. It has no value to the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7. It's no different from religion, which was the backbone of the western civilisation for quite some time.
Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Videos are considered one of the more authoritative sources of factual information. E.g. Imagine how disruptive it’d be if a deepfake of Biden announcing support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine were to circulate during those first hours of the invasion? Sure, there are other communications channels that would be able to dispute the authenticity of that video, but would those channels be as fast and as (apparently) au…
All of this is not "no such thing as trust". I too dread a little all the mischief that's going to happen while the world learns about this. But people don't have to uncritically believe "the evidence of their own eyes", even though that has been very useful corrective to many mistakes, and will I guess be less so now. Evidence doesn't work that way: people always have to interpret everything in terms of their unders…
The advent of widespread photo/video evidence was a big help for people trying to interpret was real and what wasn't. Then photography was knocked out of service by e.g. Photoshop (generally "easy photo manipulation"). Now video is getting knocked out of service as well. So, yes, it removes a useful tool in interpreting the world's evidence, and it's not clear what will replace that tool (if anything).
To be clear, the "no such thing as trust" was specifically a response to GP's assertion that people will "have to unlearn that seeing is believing." Okay, fine, but then what can you believe if you not even what you see? Again this specific tech doesn't get us all the way there, but it gets us closer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Does this apply to nuclear weapons? To biological weapons? That may not be a fair comparison. Nuclear weapons are difficult to make, and using them will not go undetected - the damage would be enormous. Deep fakes are a real threat today, and anyone willing to pay for the expertise (which isn't that hard to find) can have them made. By putting this out there, deepfakes are now something almost anyone can make whic…
I'd argue that one of the biggest reasons deepfakes pose a threat is because a large number of people don't know they exist. It's just those e-mail chains from the early 00s with poorly photoshopped images that lots of people thought were real. Now that the public knows broadly that digital manipulation is easy and they have seen it with their own eyes a ton things like that are believed less. Notice I do say less th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A knife is a multi-purpose tool that can be used as a weapon, and one that has so many important non-weapon uses that not having it would cause far more harm than having it would. This is intended primarily as a weapon, even when used defensively. There's an important qualitative difference there, though it's tempting to gallop down the slippery slope. Regardless, I'm not proposing to ban either knives or this tool -…
> we've collectively decided I think I agree with everything you wrote except what I'm unfairly reading into this phrase: we don't need to and should not irrevocably "decide" once and for all. We might have been quite wrong to ban some poisons even in the situations that applied at the time when we banned them. If we were right to do so, times may have changed and we don't any longer. Even nuclear weapons perhaps, in…
It's wordier, but more accurate, to say that I think society is (and should be) in a constant conversation with itself, deciding what to prohibit and to what extent. We regularly get this wrong, and we should never assume that our current collective position is unassailable; there should always be room for doubt and further discussion.