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

231–240 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#231

Post by tenebrisalietum »

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 interpreted this as basically equivalent to "Someone will develop it somewhere."

Re: Stop developing this technology

#232

Post by suilied »

bayindirh wrote: post #185
suilied wrote: post #170

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.

I say frown away! We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best. But I like to think in solutions, so in stead of trying to arms-race this tech into submission with ever cleverer deep-fake detectors (and thus be able to regulate), why not accept its existence and change ourselves. Not least of all because any digital tech is like a permanent mutation to the digital-dna of our global society.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#233

Post by 4ggr0 »

sneak wrote: post #191
pavlov wrote: post #87

Earlier 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.

Why is it clearly potentially harmful? It is not clear to me at all, as photoshop already exists. How is someone harmed by someone else producing video that features people who look like them? The whole "seeing is believing" thing hasn't been true for ages, every movie is half CG these days. I would perhaps buy the premise if deepfakes were sprung on the scene in the 70s or 80s, but the 90s and 2000s have inundated s…

Do you agree that most people wouldn't like to find a nude video of themselves online?

Now why does it make a difference if the video is real or not? It's still a video of a nude body with your face on it.

I find this whole deepfake-porn trend to be incredibly disgusting. And it just saddens me that heterosexual males apparently immediately have to exploit such things for their own hornyness. I guess this is also the reason why this topic is not being criticized as much, because the people who develop and consume these videos can't comprehend how disrespectful it all is towards the people (women) who are being deepfaked AND especially the results being shared online, in most cases publicly.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#235

Post by zzbzq »

nix23 wrote: post #55
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…

>Technology isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice we make. See and that's the problem, you can just talk about "you" not "we", because someone else will do it. Technology, and with it information cannot be stopped.

"I didn't murder that man, your honor, he would have died eventually anyway."

Re: Stop developing this technology

#237

Post by Levitz »

entropi wrote: post #41
jakelazaroff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Not only that, but if some people have ethical and moral considerations about the consequences of x, then those people have an ethical reason to actually do the thing, since the alternative is that the people doing it are those with no ethical or moral consideration.

If a piece of technology is going to be 90% bad 10% good and you can push it to 80% bad then it is completely justifiable to go for it.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#238

Post by LeanderK »

Again and again I am astonished that people without ethics exist, that they are confident in what they are doing and that they appear to be completely unable to reflect upon their actions. They just don't care and appear to be proud of it.

If this is used to scam old people out of their belongings then you really have to question your actions and imho bear some responsibility. Was it worth it? Do the positive uses outweigh their negatives? They use examples of misuse of technology as if that would free them of any guilt. As if previous errors would allow them to do anything because greater mistakes were made.

You are not, of course, completely responsible for the actions others take but if you create something you have to keep in mind bad actors exist. You can't just close your eyes if your actions lead to a strictly worse world. Old people scammed out of their savings are real people and it is real pain. I can't imagine the desperation and the helplessness following that. It really makes me angry how someone can ignore so much pain and not even engage in an argument whether it's the right thing to do.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#239

Post by bayindirh »

suilied wrote: post #232
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.

I say frown away! We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best. But I like to think in solutions, so in stead of trying to arms-race this tech into submission with ever cleverer deep-fake detectors (and thus be able to regulate), why not accept its existence and change ourselves. Not least of all because any digital tech is like a permanent mutation to the digital-dna of our global society.

> why not accept its existence and change ourselves.

That works too, like we accept the algorithms which tie people to screens and used to spread misinformation and manipulate the masses.

> We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best.

Yeah, like interview fraud, misinformation campaigns and what not. These are tasteless, but not harmless.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#240

Post by entropi »

harimau777 wrote: post #207
entropi wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Hmmm. Not necessarily. I mean if what you did does not change the outcome in any way, then is what you did even evil? If you have no marginal impact, can you ever do good or evil? I am not sure actually.

I realize that this could also apply to lower rank soldiers involved in some war crimes, etc. so I guess it is not that clear cut. But would you blame a random soldier of lowest rank for carrying out terrible orders and not risking himself(or his family)? Well I don't know. I guess I would not.

Of course, the stakes are rarely that high, but the harm done is also rarely that high also.

Post reply on HN