131–140 of 410 posts
Regardless of what I think about this technology in particular, I want to respond to this line from the second comment: [1] > on the contrary, it must be developed. No, it mustn’t. There’s not a gun to your head, forcing you to do this. You want to develop this technology. That’s why it’s happening. Technology isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice we make. And we can go in circles about whether it’s good or bad, but at lea…
As you can't enforce stopping development of it, it is better to also develop it to understand it better and create countermeasures like ml which detects deepfakes. This also leads potentially to more or better image/video signing Technologie. And yes just because someone develops this in the open doesn't mean that someone else is not developing it in parallel but hidden.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it WILL be developed no matter how much people wish it wouldn't. Sure, but there's a value in delaying that development. Delaying harm is a valid tactic.
> > it WILL be developed no matter how much people wish it wouldn't. > Sure, but there's a value in delaying that development. Delaying harm is a valid tactic. It is a horrible tactic when your adversary has ultra-deep pockets & mountains of bodies to throw at the problem. Whatever's being developed here has 1/10th the capability of the tech being developed in black site facilities at the behest of national militarie…
HN seems to actively work on a cognitive dissonance: on the one hand producing inspirational stories of entrepreneurs changing the world and on the other abandoning all hope that technology/market forces can be controlled in any way. I'm thinking now this is to justify away the collective guilt of bringing into the mainstream harmful products. It seems to come from the same origins as "crypto can't be regulated", "go…
Well for me, crypto is highly moral and should be developed to prevent artificial trading restrictions and eliminate borders. There are many people who consider individual freedom to be of highest importance, and who are willing to develop any technology promoting it.
I'm convinced that this idea that technology is completely neutral is wrong. It is not neutral in the face of human psychology. The human species is a different animal that the human individual, and it is powerful, but does not make truly conscious decisions. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, a wish will be made. A technology might not be inherently bad, but neither are knives, and we don't leave those lying…
'Technology is neutral' is simply a banal observation that technology is only ever used by humans who can decide what to do with it. It's not saying that a new technology doesn't enable new and terrible human choices, simply that those choices rest with the people, not the technology itself. Knives seem like the perfect example, really. We do leave them lying around in our drawers, usually under zero real security ag…
Could crypto unironically be the way out of this mess? If a document isn't signed by a wallet associated with you, it should not be considered authentic?
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 resul…
Clear that we're moving to a post-truth society. Visuals can be deepfaked, voices AI-generated. Could crypto unironically be the way out of this mess? If a document isn't signed by a wallet associated with you, it should not be considered authentic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, it mustn’t. Let's imagine you have a horrific face malformation, or went through a terrible accident that left you disfigured. Why not allow you to pass for an ordinary person, at least in video calls, so you can have a somewhat normal life? It took me two minutes to come up with a legitimate use for this technology. I imagine there are many more only a couple minutes away.
I took the OP's comment as meaning "it's not necessary for this to happen" rather than "it's necessary for this not to happen", a nuance which can be confusing, especially for non-native English speakers. The comment in the article suggests there is no choice but for this technology to be developed, and I think the OP is disagreeing with that assessment and saying "there is a choice". If I've understood that right, b…
Someone will develop it, and someone will use it for nefarious purposes - as one terrorist organization spokesperson once said, "We only need to get lucky once. You need to get lucky every time". If it is developed like this, in the open, at least we have a better chance to understand its capabilities and limitations, and to be better equipped to build countermeasures.
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.