Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop developing this technology

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#101

Post by jolmg »

tgv wrote: post #71
jolmg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we agree that it's fundamentally not a bad thing to develop a technology? If you were a legislator, how would you like to criminalize the development of technology? You know, the most difficult part of this tech is probably the facial tracking, which is probably also used for the animation of 3d avatars. The jump is probably not huge.

No, we can't. Developing "tech" is an action bound by morals like any other action. Cigarette production has tech in it. They don't just grow on trees. It was developed, and keeps being developed, by people well aware of the effects of smoking.

You're opening another can of worms with that example. An adult, informed smoker that takes care to not cause second-hand smoking and that doesn't have any dependents, causes harm only to themselves. If they think that the reduction of stress or whatever else they gain at the tradeoff of their health is worth it, that's their choice. That's part of their bodily autonomy. As such, the tech is still not inherently bad.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#102

Post by jolmg »

blooalien wrote: post #73
sneak wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What technologies are fundamentally bad? I don't know of any outside of perhaps torture devices.

Every single "weapon of mass destruction" is fundamentally bad technology, just for one ultra-easy answer…

The possibility that nuclear deterrence has helped the world to be more peaceful in comparison to the past means that it's not such an easy answer. Hasn't even been a century since nuclear weapons were invented though, so no clear statistics.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#103

Post by jl6 »

pavlov wrote: post #87
sneak wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing about producing or consuming deepfakes suggests bad faith. You might not like the art, but deepfakes are not harmful.

“NSFW deepfakes” literally means “porn with real people’s faces inserted.” Maybe that’s an art form, but it’s also clearly potentially harmful in the same way as revenge porn, teenage nude selfies, and other cases where regular people and porn intersect.

99% agree. The 1% is for the potential for deepfakes to solve blackmail. If producing deepfakes becomes trivial, any blackmail threat can be dismissed with “Whatever, I’ll just say it’s a deepfake”.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#104

Post by pjc50 »

sneak wrote: post #67
cwillu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the main page: “Communication groups [...] • mrdeepfakes - the biggest NSFW English deepfake community”, which strains my assumption of good faith debate regarding their ethics.

Nothing about producing or consuming deepfakes suggests bad faith. You might not like the art, but deepfakes are not harmful.

We've not had the test case, but in places where nonconsensual or "revenge" porn is criminalized, deepfakes may well turn out to be illegal. They're certainly distressing for the victim.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#105

Post by pjc50 »

jl6 wrote: post #103
pavlov wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“NSFW deepfakes” literally means “porn with real people’s faces inserted.” Maybe that’s an art form, but it’s also clearly potentially harmful in the same way as revenge porn, teenage nude selfies, and other cases where regular people and porn intersect.

99% agree. The 1% is for the potential for deepfakes to solve blackmail. If producing deepfakes becomes trivial, any blackmail threat can be dismissed with “Whatever, I’ll just say it’s a deepfake”.

This is not how humans work. False statements about someone damage that person, even once everybody knows they're false.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#106

Post by watwut »

lucumo wrote: post #92

There's a book in Dutch literature, The Assault by Harry Mulisch. It's a great read if you're interested in multi-faceted morality. It deals with guilt and responsibility when there's a chain of things that need to happen for a bad outcome. During WWII the protagonist's parents are shot by Germans after a body of a collaborator was found in front of their house. The parents were arguing with the soldiers about someth…

Yeah, it is Germans for shooting them. Everyone else is a victim there. Blaming mom for arguing, blaming neighbours for not wanting to be shot themselves is just victim blaming at its finest.

It was Germany who created the situation as part of their quest for world dominance, it was Germany who trained their soldiers to be violent and cruel, who created the policies and it was German soldiers who shot.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#107

Post by csomar »

candiodari wrote: post #62
pfortuny wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Tell that to Einstein, who just before Hiroshima realized it was not such a good argument. That is a nice piece of history. Ethics is important. And one consequence is: I may die but at least it was not because I made it possible.

While Einstein regretted working on nuclear weapons, the work they did there is equally responsible for the many lives saved by nuclear power, which he also appreciated. Also, it was the first 20% of the work towards nuclear fusion. Technology is not evil or good. Even this technology could be great. Jacky Chan, for example, is not going to make any more movies. But I want more of those movies. This very technology w…

> he work they did there is equally responsible for the many lives saved by nuclear power

This is still on-going. There are thousands of nuclear heads on standby. His technology might end human civilization or even the human race as we know it.

> Technology is not evil or good.

Of course, it's not. Technology is real. Evil and good are imaginary human-brain constructs.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#108

Post by pjc50 »

kefka_p wrote: post #25

Can anybody demonstrate a legitimate use of deepfake software? Has it ever been used to facilitate a socially positive or desirable outcome? While I recognize my experiences are far from definitive, I hazard most would be hard pressed to name anything positive that came out of deepfake technology. edit: I’ll take your knee-jerk DV, and any others, as an admission of an inability to speak to positive utility of this t…

What is the boundary between "deepfake" and "photoshop" (i.e. regular human "fake" or edit?)

I suspect it's going to become popular for both consensual-deepfake of oneself (PR, magazines, actors, pop stars, any form of public speaker) and "bought out" deepfake (actors selling out their image rights and then losing creative control; dead actors, etc.)

The political-deepfake is really going to accelerate the debate over how much free speech permits you to just lie about people, though.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#109

Post by qwerty456127 »

The deepfake thechnology is awesome and should be available to everybody. Because this is the only way everybody can be finally taught to think critically about everything thay hear/see.

Can you believe a politician saying something on TV? Hell no! You should exercise logic about the whole political play he is a part of. Should you think bad about a person you find on a porn site? Absolutely no, what good could result out of this in any case?

This has always been like this but now there is a thing which can push this into the common sense.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#110

Post by pjc50 »

kefka_p wrote: post #43
thejarren wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: this comment is referring to deepfakes more broadly, and is not a commentary on the validity of the source linked here. I can't speak to the reputability of the community developing this, or how it has been used so far. -- I'm a fairly visual and imaginative person, and it's pretty easy for me to come up with some very useful applications. No hostility intended, genuinely sharing my thoughts: 1. CGI for video e…

First let me thank you for a thoughtful riposte! I do appreciate that. My question was an honest one and I imagine, not the easiest to conceive an answer to. I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts. With that said almost every use-case cited was financial or monetary gain whereas I enquired about social utility and value. That dishonesty ie creation of a fake avatar is cited as being of soc…

> every use-case cited was financial or monetary gain whereas I enquired about social utility and value.

Oh, right. I think the unfortunate answer is that nobody cares about that distinction any more and only about the former.

Post reply on HN