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

221–230 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#221

Post by smallnix »

grendelt wrote: post #214
bayindirh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 bann…

That a law is broken by people does not mean we don't need it.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#222

Post by jolmg »

KyeRussell wrote: post #152
KyeRussell wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re speaking to the wrong audience. “Someone else would do it anyway” is how everyone here justifies doing unethical shit at FAANG and refusing to earn less than $300k/yr base because “that’s just the industry”. I have no respect for anyone that says this shit with a straight face.

It should also be said that anyone that makes this argument immediately loses their right to complain when governments need to step in and regulate.

You're commenting even after someone has already provided a legitimate good use of this tech, and are the third person to write as if it were established that it's unethical to develop this tech. I never said that it's fine to do unethical things because others will do it anyway, and I wish you wouldn't imply that I did. From the get-go, it was an open discussion whether the development was good/bad/neutral, and my original comment was to clarify that jakelazaroff's comment probably misinterpreted what they quoted from the use of "must".

My position is that development is not unethical. I'm not trying to justify this position because I don't think it needs to be. When I said "others will do it anyway", it's not a justification and my original comment wasn't even about my position on this. My comment was referring to the usefulness of stopping the implicit always-ethically-neutral development of a tech in order to stop the potential misuse of it. I'm saying that even if they stopped the development of this one repo, or a few, or all others implementing this tech, it'd be ineffective. This repo is just one bit of the tech. Most of the tech is in its dependencies. If someone wants it and has nefarious uses in mind, they don't really really need this repo for that.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#223

Post by smallnix »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #97
lucumo wrote: post #92

There's a book in Dutch literature, The Assault by Harry Mulisch. It's a great read if you're interested in multi-faceted morality. It deals with guilt and responsibility when there's a chain of things that need to happen for a bad outcome. During WWII the protagonist's parents are shot by Germans after a body of a collaborator was found in front of their house. The parents were arguing with the soldiers about someth…

I'm much inclined to only lay blame on the person that did the Bad Thing. There's no technology that can cure humanity of moral failing. Most things contain potential good and evil uses. You remind me of a story I was told years ago which describes a series of "good" and "bad" events and each subsequent event changes the seeming meaning of the prior one. The part I remember is where a man is given a horse and rejoice…

Maybe not the origin but here is the story told by Alan Watts: https://youtu.be/j4TZMxkxySc

Re: Stop developing this technology

#224

Post by 4ggr0 »

bondarchuk wrote: post #151
cwillu wrote: post #18

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.

If someone makes a deepfake on their own computer, watches it, and doesn't share it with anybody, I don't see how that's markedly different (morally) from just imagining the same thing. Some people have a very strong visual imagination and others don't have it at all, it's only fair if they can use a technological substitute. Also some entertainment works by artificially instilling a desire which cannot be fulfilled.…

mrdeepfakes.com is a site where deepfakes are being shared publicly, so your comment doesn't have much to do with the comment you actually replied to.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#225

Post by jefftk »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #97
lucumo wrote: post #92

There's a book in Dutch literature, The Assault by Harry Mulisch. It's a great read if you're interested in multi-faceted morality. It deals with guilt and responsibility when there's a chain of things that need to happen for a bad outcome. During WWII the protagonist's parents are shot by Germans after a body of a collaborator was found in front of their house. The parents were arguing with the soldiers about someth…

I'm much inclined to only lay blame on the person that did the Bad Thing. There's no technology that can cure humanity of moral failing. Most things contain potential good and evil uses. You remind me of a story I was told years ago which describes a series of "good" and "bad" events and each subsequent event changes the seeming meaning of the prior one. The part I remember is where a man is given a horse and rejoice…

This is usually called the "Chinese Farmer" story, and it's very popular among consultants and speakers: https://www.google.com/search?q=Chinese+Farmer+story

Re: Stop developing this technology

#226

Post by IMTDb »

Hamuko wrote: post #220
rbanffy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I've already seen porn where someone's face is blurred. And whose face are you going to put in that porn with this?

Emma Watson, probably

Re: Stop developing this technology

#227

Post by williamcotton »

dusted wrote: post #6

I think it's a good thing. Not that it's being used for evil things, but because it should help make it obvious that you can't trust anything you see on a screen. Using fake media to trick people into believing anything used to be a privileged reserved for nation states and the ultra rich. Now that _ANYONE_ and their cat can do it, it should follow that nobody can believe anything that's on a screen anymore (this com…

In Accepting an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame a few years ago, General David Sarnoff made this statement: “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” That is the voice of the current somnambulism. Suppose we were to say, “Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.” Or, “The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines their value.” That is, if the slugs reach the right people firearms are good. If the TV tubes fire the right ammunition at the right people it is good. I am not being perverse. There is simply nothing in the Sarnoff statement that will bear scrutiny, for it ignores the nature of the medium, of any and all media, in the true Narcissus style of one hypnotized by the amputation and extension of his own being in a new technical form. General Sarnoff went on to explain his attitude to the technology of print, saying that it was true that print caused much trash to circulate, but it had also disseminated the Bible and the thoughts of seers and philosophers. It has never occurred to General Sarnoff that any technology could do anything but add itself on to what we already are. (p. 11)

Marshall McLuhan - Understanding Media

Re: Stop developing this technology

#228

Post by [deleted] »

soerxpso wrote: post #171
HellzStormer wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side note about that: people doing amateur porn where their face doesn't show at all still get recognized because of particular marks on their skins. So this might help this very specific case, but maybe not as much as one would think.

It's trivial to use Stable Diffusion img2img with low noise to change the marks on your skin.

[deleted]

Re: Stop developing this technology

#229

Post by bayindirh »

grendelt wrote: post #214
bayindirh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 bann…

I see banning things is useless in the long run, but at least some people will think about why it might be banned.

I was thinking about throwing a wrench to the machine while saying "ban it" to make it stutter, like breaking the chain of obedience in Milgram Experiment, or like the woman who walks up to Zimbardo and stops The Prison Experiment (see his TED talk).

Because, as a hacker and programmer, I believe that we have ethical obligations, and this "We're doing something amazing, we need no permission" stance in these communities genuinely worry me.

Technology is not only technology, it affects people's lives. Anything which can damage it beyond a certain point by exploiting human nature is in the same category for me.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#230

Post by petesergeant »

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?

> we're moving to a post-truth society

This is far too dramatic. What's actually happening is that we simply no longer give _unattributed_ audio and video the benefit of the doubt. Data pedigree and attribution will become more important, but we're already in a place where real media is routinely misrepresented by bad actors (as a lot of purported Ukraine war footage has shown), and this will simply make us more skeptical still.

> Could crypto unironically be the way out of this mess

I did pitch a PhD study area on this[0] before deciding I didn't want to do a PhD or get into crypto. But I do think signing media and signed attribution chains will become more important ... but I don't see much need for it to be distributed. I (along with a huge number of other people) already sign documents digitally using a 3rd party service

0: https://github.com/pjlsergeant/multimedia-trust-and-certific...

Post reply on HN