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

Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 336 posts

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#161

Post by Planktonne »

systemvoltage wrote: post #159
Planktonne wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a good faith argument. I've been extremely clear throughout this comment section - I don't want censorship, I don't think this should be banned, and nowhere have I called for legal consequences for releasing this. I want people to think about their actions, and to discuss the ethical issues arising from them. And yet you've jumped to calling me morally corrupt because I want to murder craftsmen. That's no…

I am discussing larger societal implications of what happens when this type of morality expands to the extreme. Absolutely zero to do with you personally. You're building a strawman. To you personally: If you're going around touting "other side's morality", you should be open to seeing what happens when this kind of thinking is adopted by the society. Don't play the victim game.

> A watch maker killed for the tyranny of time.

This isn't so much a strawman as a slippery slope made from them. It is not reasonable to leap from 'people should acknowledge and discuss the ethics of their actions' to 'blood-drenched tyranny'.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#162

Post by systemvoltage »

Planktonne wrote: post #161
systemvoltage wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am discussing larger societal implications of what happens when this type of morality expands to the extreme. Absolutely zero to do with you personally. You're building a strawman. To you personally: If you're going around touting "other side's morality", you should be open to seeing what happens when this kind of thinking is adopted by the society. Don't play the victim game.

> A watch maker killed for the tyranny of time. This isn't so much a strawman as a slippery slope made from them. It is not reasonable to leap from 'people should acknowledge and discuss the ethics of their actions' to 'blood-drenched tyranny'.

Yes, done on purpose. IMO when discussing morality, we should consistently applying it, a litmus test for whether it holds up or not.

I am arguing that your case is fundamentally flawed, irrational, corrupt, inconsistent and dangerous.

Edit: I can't respond to your slippery slope fallacy but you started with an extremely broad stance "Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability." I am responding in kind with an extremely broad implications. I guess we're busy debating which fallacy falls in whose arm with not addressing what I countered your argument with. First came the victimization, then a strawman card, then a slippery slope fallacy card. But you never considered responding to what happens when we take your ideas and consistently apply them. I still don't understand why you feel like you're being accused. I am arguing about the points you raised. No one is accussing you of anything.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#164

Post by Planktonne »

systemvoltage wrote: post #162
Planktonne wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A watch maker killed for the tyranny of time. This isn't so much a strawman as a slippery slope made from them. It is not reasonable to leap from 'people should acknowledge and discuss the ethics of their actions' to 'blood-drenched tyranny'.

Yes, done on purpose. IMO when discussing morality, we should consistently applying it, a litmus test for whether it holds up or not. I am arguing that your case is fundamentally flawed, irrational, corrupt, inconsistent and dangerous. Edit: I can't respond to your slippery slope fallacy but you started with an extremely broad stance "Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from…

A slippery slope [1] - particularly based on a wild misstatement of my position - is not a strong argument.

If you want to argue against my case, then please do that, starting by engaging with the position I'm actually advancing [2]. It's difficult to discuss morality at all when you're deliberately engaging in violent rhetoric rather than with me.

[1] https://fallacyinlogic.com/slippery-slope-fallacy-definition... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#165

Post by krankow »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #84
barnabee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue there is a moral imperative to create and release tools like this as free and open source software so that anyone has access to them and can choose whether to use them, rather than only sophisticated and well resourced adversaries. IMO the creators should feel good about their actions, even if they feel bad or apprehensive about the direction of the world because this technology exists at all.

I can’t see a way this technology could be used defensively. Wide access just leads to more abuse. There’s no principle by which it serves some sort of justice to make some crime more accessible. It’s surprising how often this argument is made compared to, say, equal-opportunity access to fancy cars or good housing.

More usage = More awareness = More people stop trusting random videos on the internet as evidence of anything.

Seems like a good thing.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#166

Post by einr »

mgdlbp wrote: post #129
galangalalgol wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A screen with double the resolution and twice the framrate should be indistinguishable. Moreover if you pop the case on the camera and replace the sensor with something fed by display port (probably need an fpga to convert display port to lvds, spi,ic2 or whatever those sensors use, at speed) that should work too.

Not if the camera includes metadata like focus, shutter speed, accelerometer, GPS, etc. I don't really know, but I imagine the hardware security required wouldn't be too far from what's common now. Cameras are already unrepairable, so I suppose the arguments would have to be more from the privacy and who-controls-the-chipmakers perspectives.

You could include LIDAR with the camera and use that data to verify that there is depth to the image.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#167

Post by mastersummoner »

rolisz wrote: post #94
ethanbond wrote: post #64

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.

For nuclear weapons, even if plans were publicly available, getting the right kind of uranium would still be a major hurdle for 99.9% of the people.

But what if they weren't? What if one could create something with similar destructive force with materials easily accessible, and the only hurdle is knowledge of how to do so?

It's honestly an interesting moral question.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#168

Post by dr_zoidberg »

Planktonne wrote: post #120
Reubensson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it sounds like it boils down to either you release the software or you don't. If you decide to release it into public, I don't think there is much you can realistically do to prevent abuse.

Release/don't release is definitely the choice with the highest impact, but it's not the only thing that can be considered. Who you release things to, in what form, with what framing - all of these impact how something will be used. You can never eliminate bad actors, but you can encourage responsible use.

If you know to use Linux properly you can tamper with digital evidence and make a mess for a digital forensics investigator. The thing is, despite Linux making it easier than Windows, it doesn't come with a "here's how to erase digital evidence!" manual[0]. It's "left as an exercise to the reader".

Probably same on macOS, but it's (mostly) not open source, so you can't really argue about it being an open source thing that lets you do evil stuff. You could argue about its availability though.

And it boils down to the point you (and others) were making: these are tools, the ethics are in how you use them.

[0] I know there are some forensic distros that come with anti-forensic tools. Still, Linux in general is the environment that allows that kind of thing to work in the first place, going back to the original point of whether it should be open source or not.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#169

Post by barnabee »

bko wrote: post #148
barnabee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue there is a moral imperative to create and release tools like this as free and open source software so that anyone has access to them and can choose whether to use them, rather than only sophisticated and well resourced adversaries. IMO the creators should feel good about their actions, even if they feel bad or apprehensive about the direction of the world because this technology exists at all.

Honest question, do you apply the same reasoning to gun control?

Good question. I would apply that reasoning to the information about how a gun works for sure, but IMO there is some (admittedly hard to define) amount of danger or perhaps destructive power beyond which we might or perhaps should choose as a society to restrict the ability to wield a tool and certainly at least some guns exceed that limit for me. I’m not sure that any software, on its own, does though, at least I can’t think of any immediate examples.

I admit that this limit is hard to define. It’s also extremely hard to enforce for pure data, if that turns out to be what we want to do.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#170

Post by DoItToMe81 »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #142
Hendrikto wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I stab someone with a knife, who is responsible? The inventor of knives? The knife‘s manufacturer? The store who sold me the knife? I would say the responsibility lays 100% with myself. I do not think it makes sense to pursue inventors for what happens to their creations, unless they actively encourage misuse.

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?

Thousands of cheap special effects that would not otherwise be possible without a studio. Comparing this to meth, which has extreme detrimental effects on the human body, brain and the society that has to deal with the dangerous junkies it creates is completely absurd.
Post reply on HN