301–310 of 461 posts
Everyone has their own fears about AI, but my fears are especially chilling; what if AI was used to imitate a person saying something blasphemeous? My country is already has blasphemy lynching mobs based on the slightest perceived insult, real or imagined. They will mob you, lynch you, burn your corpse, then distribute sweets while you family hide and issue video messages denouncing you and forgiving the mob. And thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what theft even means any more They dragged the term through different phases, but that’s just projection of will. Theft is undefined for objects with .copy() interface. It’s still there when you look at it. People have to adjust expectations, not laws. Computers replaced computers, now voice acting replaces voice actors. Your popularity doesn’t mean anything really and wouldn’t it be unfair if only popular could spa…
> They dragged the term through different phases, but that’s just projection of will. In other words, that's just the normal lifecycle of words in a language with an active speaker community. In any stage of history, the meaning of words is just the speaker community's projection of will. Best I can do now is acknowledge that what counts as "theft" is a complicated topic and can't be decided by a binary "is said obje…
I understand most of your points, but my main question still stands: how do we choose who’s worth sparing and why it should be Ms. Johanson or wlop or my grandma whose ability basically became stolen(“”?) in the 80s.
I believe this has to do with emotion more than anything else. AI theft is closer to the skin than any worker/engineer who was replaced long ago. But at the same time it is another step in human development. We can decide now if having a nice face and/or talking in a specific way is worth being a job or is a worthless skill. Still quite a skill! Just worth not much, akin to adding lots of numbers in your head now.
Whatever we choose, the non-forward looking choice will be crushed by reality, as usual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only logical legal solution is that any content of you shared by you is legitimate one and all other content of you shared by somebody else is presumed non-authenthic and possibly fake.
What if a third party gains access to your social media account(s) and starts posting fake content from there?
I was thinking about deepfakes and how to protect from them and my conclusion is; there is no way you can protect from them from the practical point of view but from the legal point of view, governments can make laws where everything shared by somebody else that involves you is presumed fake unless there is substantial circumstantial evidence that says otherwise e.g. witnesses, legitimate metadata etc. etc.
Even before LLMs and GenAI, Photoshop became a synonym for messing around and faking photos so there is nothing new here but now there is more powerful "faking" software available to the masses.
Before computers and digital mass media sharing some compromising photo or tape could've been assumed authentic but now in the era of computers and software there is no way you can tell that something is authentic for sure.
>What if a third party gains access to your social media account(s) and starts posting fake content from there?
You can cause chaos and bad press in the short-term but when the original owner of the account restores ownership of the account everything falls apart. Like the commenter below said it happens all the time and it doesn't have any real impact on anything whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what if AI was used to imitate a person saying something blasphemeous? > My country is already has blasphemy lynching mobs in your case the problem is not AI, it’s your country.
An individual is not responsible for the culture or government in the country they live in. In the UK a government was just elected with a historical absolute majority by only ten million people, and now first time offenders are being sent to prison for making stupid offensive statements online.
> In a now deleted post on her X account, Mrs Connolly, from Northampton, wrote: “Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*** hotels full of the bastards for all I care… If that makes me racist, so be it.
> The court heard Kay copied, pasted and uploaded Mrs Connolly’s post at 12.27pm on Wednesday from a BBC News report and added the hashtags #standwithlucyconnolly #lucyconnolly #f**northamptonshirepolice #conservative #FaragesRiots #RiotsUK and #Northampton.
> As well as a post which urged people to “mask up” during a protest targeting an immigration law firm, Kay tweeted to his 127 followers at 2.34am: “That’s 100% the plan, plus gloves. No car either so no number plate to trace and a change of clothes ready nearby.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/northampton-bbc-...
Everyone has their own fears about AI, but my fears are especially chilling; what if AI was used to imitate a person saying something blasphemeous? My country is already has blasphemy lynching mobs based on the slightest perceived insult, real or imagined. They will mob you, lynch you, burn your corpse, then distribute sweets while you family hide and issue video messages denouncing you and forgiving the mob. And thi…
I think the answer, counterintuitively, is to make these AI tools more open and accessible. As long as they're restricted or regulated or inaccessible people will continue to think of videos and recordings as not fakeable. But make voice cloning something easy and fun to do with a $1 app, let the teens have their prank call fun and pretty soon it should work its way into the public consciousness. I had my 70 year mot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes, the United States, founded on religious freedom, is the place where you get stoned in the street for blasphemy.
Try to say anything related to sex or sexual freedom in the US and they will immediately lynch you. Welcome to USAbad, a Puritanic republic.
You can absolutely positively find a free lawyer if your issue is interesting enough.
This is the most interesting issue of our day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I think if you photoshopped someone into an advertising image in a way that made them appear to endorse your product you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? So I’m increasingly of the opinion that it’s not the tool that needs to be regulated, but the use of the output. Clone voices? Fine. Clone voices for deceptive or commercial purposes without the person’s consent? Not fine. But then…
>you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? A lawsuit from a private individual or business entity is very different from the federal, state, or municipal government attempting to silence you, the latter is prohibited by the First Amendment. I find it appalling that this needs to be spelled out.
Fully aware of the difference between a civil lawsuit vs government lawsuit though so you can pop your italics back in the box and rest easy!
Everyone has their own fears about AI, but my fears are especially chilling; what if AI was used to imitate a person saying something blasphemeous? My country is already has blasphemy lynching mobs based on the slightest perceived insult, real or imagined. They will mob you, lynch you, burn your corpse, then distribute sweets while you family hide and issue video messages denouncing you and forgiving the mob. And thi…