181–190 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your response doesn't make any sense. Care to elaborate?
As GeorgeMD pointed out, there's some required reading.
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 peopl…
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…
> It is not neutral in the face of human psychology. It's worth noting that nuclear weapons seem to have prevented more deaths than they caused. The MAD doctrine has prevented direct confrontation between the superpowers and limited their military conflicts to proxy wars. And this is a technology that has almost no application beyond vaporizing cities almost instantaneously.
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…
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 peopl…
On the other hand somebody can say "if we don't, then others will". So regulate and ban the technology, then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually don't agree with this. Assume that the following premises are true: * action x is legal, but results in a worse world for everyone. * doing action x benefits the first 1000 people who do it. * much more than 1000 are capable of doing x, including me. * if I do it now, I will be one of the first 1000. If these are true, I think one should do action x. I believe one would be completely justified in doing it.
Basically prisoner's dilemma. I think the answer is inherent to the question of whether it's "justified", and the fact that you're being downvoted. If Prisoner's Dilemma is played once, the optimal strategy is to defect. If it's repeated an unknown number of times, the optimal strategy is tit-for-tat. Now, if you're an identifiable actor in a pool of tit-for-tat-players, and you have a history of defecting first, you…
> (...)In that case, defecting will be seen as justifiable.
Exactly! My argument basically boiled down to this. In certain situations, defecting may be the way to go. I would not blame the defector for doing what is in their best interest.
And “someone would have done this anyway” could very well be what's turning a situation into a prisoner's dilemma, so it could actually be a valid justification in some cases.
But yeah, it could depend on what is meant by "justification" exactly.
What utterly horrible minds in that comment thread. The justification that other bad things happen means we can reasonably create more evil is disgusting. Those posses a complete lack of a moral compass.
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…
Nuclear weapons and the advent of mutually assured destruction has ushered in a world where many, many, many fewer people die of violent conflict.
Technologies that cause destruction are not congruent with destruction. They change the game such that destruction may actually be prevented by their existence. They are tools, nothing more.
It's possible they have permanently eradicated world war. If that's true, they are not fundamentally bad but in fact really quite great. Only time will tell.
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…
As one example, Matt Stone and Trey Parker made a short movie (and tried to do a feature) with deep fake technology [0]. [0] https://collider.com/trey-parker-matt-stone-almost-made-sass...