I wonder if some form of regulation is coming to tech. We do not allow people to spread heroin freely or slavery or some other sort of horrible stuff.
Stop developing this technology
201–210 of 410 posts
Re: Stop developing this technology
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've not had the test case, but in places where nonconsensual or "revenge" porn is criminalized, deepfakes may well turn out to be illegal. They're certainly distressing for the victim.
It's already illegal for a person to pretend to be another real person without their consent.
[deleted]
Re: Stop developing this technology
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
“NSFW deepfakes” literally means “porn with real people’s faces inserted.” Maybe that’s an art form, but it’s also clearly potentially harmful in the same way as revenge porn, teenage nude selfies, and other cases where regular people and porn intersect.
This sounds like something literally 90% of humanity does in their imagination at some point in their lives. It's inevitable that someone is going to do it in a video when the tech becomes good enough. I'd say it's not the thing itself that's a problem, it's publishing whatever you create as if it's real. There are many things in life that are potentially harmful, but are part of everyday life since nobody actually h…
You do see the difference between a thought, shared with no one and visible to no one, and an image on a computer, which can be uploaded to the internet, right? This isn't about stopping sexual desire, it's about not distributing images of someone's naked body without their permission. That it's not a guaranteed accurate representation is sort of beside the point. It's good enough if you've never seen them naked before. Some people have gone on record saying they don't like it when it happens to them. Why, do you think?
Re: Stop developing this technology
#204Regarding the downvotes and the second comment on the linked page:
I guess the non-sensical argument "it's not the that , but the person using the " will never die out.
If you don't have , it's much harder to , has to be done hands-on from a very close distance with much higher risk for the perpetrator.
Re: Stop developing this technology
#205Earlier 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…
[deleted]
Re: Stop developing this technology
#206I'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.
If it happens even once those “lives saved” gains will be wiped away. If the stock market is rising for a hundred years then literally goes to zero, you’ve still lost the long game, buying short term gains at the expense of the long term.
If our children all die in a nuclear holocaust, it doesn’t really matter how many lives we saved, does it?
Re: Stop developing this technology
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Basically prisoner's dilemma > (...)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 ju…
This assumes that there is no morality. That there is no merit in not doing something evil even if others will do it in your place.
Re: Stop developing this technology
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> 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…
So imagine if we had done what you suggest and slowed the spread of radio and cinema. People have barely any idea that such things are possible. And then one day Hitler comes along after surreptitiously developing radio and cinema, and distributes it among the German population, and uses it for his propaganda campaigns. Would that have been better?
Timing is all. You may dislike the analogy - sorry I don't mean to antagonise.
At the start of the pandemic, and in the middle and towards the end there were always voices arguing for "herd immunity now! Let the inevitable happen, as it must".
For me, those voices were too early, until other things had fallen into place. Then they were eventually right.
Re: Stop developing this technology
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Most crypto is controlled by a few key players with even less oversight and accountability than the governments.
The same for any other form of money.
Re: Stop developing this technology
#210Earlier 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.
Yes but in the end it’s all about choice. It’s not some creation of chaotic coincidences and circumstances. It’s not some accidental discovery. It’s an active choice by whoever decides to make it for whoever purpose.
The argument isn’t matter of should it be made, but that the only reason it’s being made is because of people actual choices to do so. It’s not randomly spawning Into existence of its own free will.