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

161–170 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#161

Post by msm_ »

kozziollek wrote: post #138
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #136

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.

You can't sign stuff without crypto (unless you mean by hand, on paper). Cryptographic signatures by design involve cryptography.

I know what you both meant, just playing with words, sorry. I just hope now that the dust has settled, we can go back to the world where "crypto" meant "cryptography", not anything else[1]

[1] https://www.cryptoisnotcryptocurrency.com/

Re: Stop developing this technology

#162

Post by bondarchuk »

lovemenot wrote: post #98
dusted wrote: post #40

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.

Why does it have to be traumatic? Maybe the development of mass media was traumatic, everyone putting near-complete trust in any video they see or piece of text they read was traumatic, and now we will see some of that trauma be undone.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#163

Post by blowski »

rbanffy wrote: post #139
blowski wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> there also many good counter-arguments. 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.

This is exactly the Prisoner's Dilemma, and also shows up in arguments why we need to build insane numbers of nuclear weapons. The logic rests on a faulty assumption that there is a binary choice - either you build it this way, or somebody else builds it this way. It doesn't consider any other possible paths that could lead to better outcomes.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#164

Post by amarant »

Lots of comments here and in the GitHub thread claiming there are no legitimate uses for this, so I thought I'd drop a legitimate use just to have an example: I saw an unrelated article today where someone had used some deepfake technology to change the spoken language of an actor.

Imagine what that would mean for dubbed movies/TV if it gets good enough.

There are legit usecases, and that justifies the technologies existence. The bad actors don't make it immoral to develop a technology IMO.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#165

Post by CyborgCabbage »

A lot of people in the comments here are saying that this is beneficial because it will teach people that they can't trust video or audio. But I don't see how that makes sense because this isn't some neutered or weakened form of the technology. That's like saying shooting people makes them more aware of gun violence.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#166

Post by verdverm »

The_Colonel wrote: post #114
kstenerud wrote: post #88

This kind of technology is far too useful to repressive regimes and those who wish to do nasty things with it. This means that the incentive to develop this technology is already there, and so it WILL be developed no matter how much people wish it wouldn't. The only difference at this point is whether some of the implementations are developed in public view or not. If none are public, then all of them will be done in…

> 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.

Alternatively, having tools like this easily available makes it easier to raise awareness and build teams to combat them.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#167

Post by tlongo »

tgv wrote: post #75

Remember: if you helped develop it, you're responsible for it. If it kills people, you share the blame. So, what's the possible scenario for that outcome? Well, look at the upcoming elections in Nigeria. The BBC writes: "With an estimated 80 million Nigerians online, social media plays a huge role in national debates about politics. Our investigation uncovered different tactics used to reach more people on Twitter. M…

I think "blame" is the wrong term here.

No one can be blamed for unintended consequences (most of the time, I guess). However, the fact remains that one is a crucial part of the chain of events that led to the very existence of the consequence.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#168

Post by d0gsg0w00f »

sneak wrote: post #70
ano88888 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. When that chaos happen, just remember that you will not be safe from it

Fake information being promoted does not inherently spread chaos. The church has been around for years and despite the millennia of lies we are all still here and thriving and improving. Bullshit spreads faster, but truth wins out over centuries because it doesn't go away when you stop looking at it.

    The church has been around for years and despite the millennia of lies we are all still here and thriving and improving.
Sure, certain members of the church got carried away with their power but the church has also been a huge psychological boon to billions of people. For example, we have Christianity to thank for the concept of individual rights and sovereignty. It wasn't that long ago that individuals did not have any inherent value. Christianity is at the root of the "modern" concept of "innocent until proven guilty".

Re: Stop developing this technology

#169

Post by lovemenot »

bondarchuk wrote: post #162
lovemenot wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why does it have to be traumatic? Maybe the development of mass media was traumatic, everyone putting near-complete trust in any video they see or piece of text they read was traumatic, and now we will see some of that trauma be undone.

>> Maybe the development of mass media was traumatic,

Yes, it really was. Adolf Hitler, for one, found radio and cinema and he just used what was already there. Before his countrymen had developed the media chops to deal with his messaging.

Others' past failures are not an excuse for our future ones. Nor should we allow ourselves to blithely imagine that this time it'll be different. Without strong evidence to the contrary.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#170

Post by suilied »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #3

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…

I understand the sentiment but I disagree. It's just another disruptive piece of technology that people will have to adjust to. If you can't trust a digital face, then nobody will and using this tech for scamming purposes will simply fizzle out after an initial "adjustment period". I know that sounds rough but society might react differently than you think, i.e.: with digital faces being useless for identifying people, and maybe even becoming creepy or unsettling because of the implicated fakeness, meeting people in real life (opening bank accounts, transactions in general, anything where trust is valuable) will have more value. Don't fight progress in the hopes you can one day become complacent.
Post reply on HN