141–150 of 410 posts
You might argue that the technology to make pixels on a screen resembling real humans is bad, but then you have to actually make that argument (and "some people got scammed" is indeed such an argument, albeit a pretty weak one), not just shift it to "this is technology, machine guns are technology, machine guns are bad".
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…
Debatable at least in case of smaller dictatorships like North Korea, Eritrea, Qatar ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats your alternative? Attempt to hide the fact that everything can be easily faked, and that you don't need to be a hollywood studio to do it? What good do you think that does? Instill a false sense of security and trust in a medium which cannot bear it ? How's that not worse? Even outright banning this technology won't make a dent in the bad uses, since those individuals are highly motivated, highly competent and…
If you truly believe all that, what are you doing to minimise the inevitable damage? The transition will suely be traumatic. What's your interest in mitigating the trauma? Does it bother you at all? I agree with what you wrote above. I wish to slow implementations, to allow time for adjustment.
I'm not doing anything, in particular, I don't know what to do about it ?
I could say that I "do my research" but I don't, because I don't know how to do that withing the framework of not trusting what I read.
I probably use my personal version of common sense, which of course is biased and lacking.. For instance, with the covid masks, I ignored the media arguments from both sides, and thought "if it's in the air, a mask might trap some particles, it might reduce my chance of spreading it or catching it".. I didn't believe the studies that said it was inefficient because I know doctors are using masks during surgery, and Japanese during common cold, so, I know they're at least not going to be detrimental.
I'm old enough that I learned a lot of stuff before the information apocalypse.. I try to apply my understanding of the world to selecting a course of action, but I also understand that it will be imperfect.
I listen to arguments and try to apply my own rationale in deciding whether to believe them.. But we all do that.. I don't take statements as facts at face value because I don't know how they were derived, I will try to think about how plausible it is, together with the sources and my existing knowledge.. Of course I will fail.
Yeah, I believe it but I don't know what can be done about it. I put more confidence in some sources than other, but I don't believe anything to be 100% true simply based on the source..
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 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…
Which are blocked from pulling from Github?
In the case that they're blocked: They'd only need one unrestricted computer to pull their libraries into & subsequently copy that onto siloed off workstations. It's not like anyone will actually care to notice.
In the case that they aren't blocked: Business as usual.
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?
And why would you need crypto for that? You can sign stuff without crypto.
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.
The entities with interest in it have bigger pockets than some random open source project.
Countries like China can no doubt develop this independently, but they are unlikely to share the technology with random extremists.
Do you trust videocall participants because you recognize their faces and voices? ...Or because a server certified by a root CA has authenticated the other participants?
The age of deepfakes has started, nobody can stop it. Improving our mental security models will become as essential as literacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"must" is probably the wrong word, but if they don't develop it, someone else will. At most, it would be delayed, and I'm not sure there's much difference in that.
Can we agree that “someone would have done this anyway” is a poor justification for one’s actions? That’s what you say when you 1) recognize that you did a bad thing, but 2) don’t want to be blamed for it.
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.
> strains my assumption of good faith debate regarding their ethics. Let's flip the argument upside down. Let's imagine you want to produce porn content, but don't want to be recognized. This technology allows that.
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…
This rabbit hole goes waaay deep. Why should people believe anything you say on this topic? How can they know you're not a bot or a psy-ops troll working for Xi or Putin with the mission to undermine the very fabric of Democratic societies? What truths/facts should people NOT doubt when they're using "common sense" and thinking "critically". Are we not all affected by propaganda that directly targets what we consider…
They shouldn't. I would just be glad if they would analyse my oppinion and try to understand what do I mean. Whenever I mention a fact they should check it if they consider it important.
> How can they know you're not a bot or a psy-ops troll working for Xi or Putin with the mission to undermine the very fabric of Democratic societies?
I am a psy-ops troll working for myself, my mission is to destroy unconscious beliefs, help people choose their own perception and beliefs counsciously, develop habits to exercise valid logic and become unmanipulatable and happy this way. Perhaps this indeed can undermine the fabric of Democratic societies. Democratic (let alone autocratic) is not free, it generally is a dictate of opportunist manipulators who manage to mesmerize the majority (while majority is never too bright). Isn't it?'
> As humans there are VERY FEW "facts" we can know from first principles
"A person looking like this is being shown on TV waying that right now" is a fact (not 100% reliable, perhaps I'v dreaming, but it most probably is). The statement he announces is not a fact, probably a lie. But now we can speculate about why would he say that now, given current context, how probable it is he is nit a deepfake and whether or not does this matter.
Only 5 different regular polyhedra forms can exist in euclidean 3D space - this is another fact.