211–220 of 410 posts
It’s not going to end the argument though, not least because you’ll then have to assign a relative value to abstract things like “personal freedom” or “artistic expression”.
Even if you could quantify the losses to crypto scams, you can’t put an objective value on some of its more ideological benefits.
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?
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…
When was such time in history? I'm trying to think of one and I can't. Misinformation has spread in the past too, albeit slowly. The checks and balances did nothing to stop the custodians of the institutions from dismissing heliocentrism, the germ theory, or the continental drift. And for a modern example, the checks and balances failed when the authorities shared a narrative about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
All of that was possible without today's technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 don't see a difference between any technology. So if we can frown upon some nation for developing nukes, we can frown upon a group people for developing this. On the other hand somebody can say "if we don't, then others will". So regulate and ban the technology, then.
When has that ever worked? What banned technology is conceived of but not developed because some government entity said not to?
I think the "if we don't, then others will" is part of the natural progression of technology. Whatever the next logical step of development is, that's where development efforts will flow. Some might not want to go there, but some will. Someone banning it will likely only fan the flames and drive more interest into the space - ala the "Streisand Effect".
When the US government (et al) labeled certain numbers "illegal" because they could be used to break DRM or certain encryption types, academia and hackers alike openly mocked the notion. T-shirts, stickers, and websites sprung up further spreading this "illegal" knowledge. People who had no idea about how a number could be so "dangerous" suddenly wanted to know. By telling people they can't know or do something will absolutely drive people toward that knowledge.
The hacker mentality often answers the question "why?" with "because I can". Saying you cannot only encourages more to jump in.
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.
Even if the government regulates that I can’t physically have one, I could rent a rig of A100X8 servers in Russia, VPN tunnel into it, and download whatever artifacts the server generates.
How in the world could any government short of North Korea effectively regulate such a thing, even if they went full authoritarian, the blowback from such draconian measures would be intense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> I saw Bob about to stab Alice, so I beat Bob to it and shot her in the head. I did nothing wrong since the outcome would have been the same regardless of my actions.
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.
How are you going to effectively regulate a white paper? Or Stable diffusion? These things can be trained on readily available, easily purchased by the average citizen commodity GPU hardware. Heck, there’s rumors NVIDIA has an RTX titan in the pipe for under $3000 with 48GB of VRAM! Even if the government regulates that I can’t physically have one, I could rent a rig of A100X8 servers in Russia, VPN tunnel into it, a…
Edit: i really don't like the idea that i have to be paranoid about every interaction with tech.
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.
Once I’m rich and powerful I can afford to be ethical, isn’t that the way of billionaires anyway?
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…
It could allow people to petition their government [0] without having someone bust down their door at 3am and disappear forever.
[0] Which is apparently important enough to have been included in the bill of rights
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.
And whose face are you going to put in that porn with this?