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

241–250 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#241

Post by sneak »

4ggr0 wrote: post #233
sneak wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think that most people would not care if a video is posted online of them if the video is in fact fake.

Would you care if someone posted a nude image of someone with your face photoshopped on it? If so, why?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#242

Post by kayodelycaon »

Jemm wrote: post #199
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 disagree. We should develop this technology and make people aware of the implications and teach them to be vigilant.

Because being vigilant works so well now...

Knowledge isn't useful if you can't apply it in practice.

My work's IT has a habit of sending out phishing emails that closely match emails legitimate emails our employees and vendors send. We're supposed to be vigilant for looking at the Reply-To field, which is hidden by default on mobile devices. (As is the url things are going to.)

I will never not trigger those. Why? My brain can't tap the header field for every single email I read. And I can't ignore legitimate emails.

Every time on my phone, I'll click the link, then check the url in the browser. I can't get my brain to check before clicking the link. (Trust me, I'm neuro-divergent and I'd tried for years. It won't reprogram.)

Re: Stop developing this technology

#243

Post by jakelazaroff »

blowski wrote: post #125
rbanffy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it mustn’t. Let's imagine you have a horrific face malformation, or went through a terrible accident that left you disfigured. Why not allow you to pass for an ordinary person, at least in video calls, so you can have a somewhat normal life? It took me two minutes to come up with a legitimate use for this technology. I imagine there are many more only a couple minutes away.

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…

Yeah, that’s correct. I wanted to match the original comment’s phrasing and thought it was clear from context, but I probably should have just used a different word to avoid ambiguity.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#244

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

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…

In my experience, in the US, the lawyers will find the "deep pockets" to go after, and may establish precedent.

In the US, we have the Second Amendment, which has probably prevented many, many lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers (but there have still been a few).

Unless there's a constitutional amendment, protecting the tech, it's pretty likely that some hungry lawyers will figure out how to go up the food chain, and get some money.

If the tech is used to go after politicians and oligarchs (almost guaranteed), you can bet that some laws will appear, soon.

In the US, threat of lawsuits govern many decisions. It's a totally legitimate fear, and politicians are notorious for protecting their hunting grounds, and their privileges.

Look at the fight over encryption. It is a "no-brainer," if you are aware of the tech, yet politicians have a very real chance of doing great damage to it.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#246

Post by vault_ »

low_tech_love wrote: post #156
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…

The problem is that there is a big confusion about building the technology and using it in some specific, wrong way. Surely anyone here will agree that building the technology itself should not be forbidden. You can do it for some valid reason, or simply for fun. It’s not for anyone to judge or stop you from doing it. Those who use it for some nefarious reason must then answer for that. Guns are the obvious compariso…

What's the confusion? The allegation is that choosing to build this represents, at best, incredibly poor judgment. The GitHub issue and GP post are good faith appeals to kindest possible interpretations of this work. To use your own example, explosives can be useful, but if you discovered that your neighbor was building pipe bombs in his garage, you'd probably want them to stop. "I'm not gonna use them. I just think they're neat." is not a convincing argument for them to continue. To extend the analogy a bit further, this seems comparable to discovering a box full of pipe bombs with a big "free" sign in front of their house.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#247

Post by _djo_ »

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.…

I think it's a fundamentally different thing, morally speaking.

Imagination is fleeting, ephemeral, jumbled, and usually linked to a specific state of mind that passes once the person has either grown bored of the imagination of achieved whatever satisfaction they wanted from it.

A deep fake image or video is persistent on your device and may leak some day, but worse is that feels real in a way mere imagination never can and it's something a person could go back to over and over, feeding into and enhancing their obsession with the non-consenting person.

I think it's a bad thing in ways that imagination and porn are not.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#248

Post by peyton »

LeanderK wrote: post #238

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 ou…

I can already fire off emails and text messages claiming to be whomever I want. I can even hire impersonators and lookalikes. I don’t get the big push against these newer technologies.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#249

Post by gloosx »

Why is it such a big concern? As far as I know deep fake can be recognised with solid confidence using other neural net model? It's only a matter of time this will be detected in every kind of real-time communication app if it poses some kind of a threat and it is rising. Sure, it must be developed, and it's a good thing it is done in public, so the defenders can prepare to defend on open-source material, no?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#250

Post by fps_doug »

peyton wrote: post #248
LeanderK wrote: post #238

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 ou…

I can already fire off emails and text messages claiming to be whomever I want. I can even hire impersonators and lookalikes. I don’t get the big push against these newer technologies.

You're exactly proving the point GP makes, good job.
Post reply on HN