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

261–270 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#261

Post by Felkomo »

jevgeni wrote: post #132
Felkomo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you can't enforce stopping development of it, it is better to also develop it to understand it better and create countermeasures like ml which detects deepfakes. This also leads potentially to more or better image/video signing Technologie. And yes just because someone develops this in the open doesn't mean that someone else is not developing it in parallel but hidden.

There is ZERO credibility that this development will be used to "create a countermeasure", especially mrdeepfakes is a key communication channel there.

I'm not talking special to mrdeepfake.

My argument still makes a point that you can't just forbid it. Someone else will do it anyway

Re: Stop developing this technology

#262

Post by gnramires »

staunton wrote: post #112
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 think the appropriate way to understand blame and guilt is as social technologies. Who is responsible for some event depends on perspective. Any actor should assign blame, guilt and responsibility in a way that leads to preferred outcomes in the future, e.g. by selecting other agents to collaborate with, communicating rules or contracts and enforcing incentives. Different actors may assign blame differently and the…

I think so too. If the next time you can change something you would have done, such that less people suffer or die, then it seems like you should go ahead and do that. In the end this is the simple rule.

Sometimes you just didn't have the complete picture and you might have been acting ideally given the limited information you had; that is, if you changed your behavior, it might change for the worst in other situations. It's not about self-punishing, it's about learning!

Re: Stop developing this technology

#263

Post by kderbyma »

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.

And you do and its just as effective??? wow you are a pretty aweful person.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#264

Post by jakelazaroff »

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.

That logic is how every atrocity in human history was enabled:

- If I catch this escaped slave, I can get the bounty instead of someone else!

- One of us Auschwitz guards will shoot that escaping prisoner; why shouldn’t I get rewarded for it?

So on and so forth.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#265

Post by kderbyma »

There is no good for this technology. Nothing good that truly outweighs the bad. I agree with the Sentiment. These deepfakes are not good...they cheapen everything and lower the standard for all....it's literally scammers who want this stuff and people who want to take shortcuts.... essentially you can morally judge a person by this technology and their approach

Re: Stop developing this technology

#266

Post by trashtester »

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.

For an atheist, moral absolutes are absurd (though still widely held). There are no more an absolute case for saying it's evil for a human child to play before a mouse before killing it, than it is for a kitten to do the same.

Rather, one could argue, morality is a set of emotions, norms, beliefs and rules we have gained through culture and evolution in response to certain behavior patterns. And these can be seen as having a game-theoretical foundation. The rules that assigns the label Evil to someone tends to select people that we (or our ingroup) are in an existential conflict with, at a level where it's either us or them.

For instance, we can have rules that define some patterns of behavior as Evil, and have different set of moral rules for treating people depending on whether they are classified as Evil or not.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#267

Post by pc86 »

fps_doug wrote: post #250
peyton wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No they're not and this flippant dismissal is so intellectually lazy.

The ability to scam people exists and isn't going away. People went town to town in covered wagons selling bullshit. People scammed others out of money centuries before that.

The answer isn't pearl-clutching nonsense about how this technology is so different and so morally reprehensible compared to everything else. The answer is education. If someone shows up at your door and sells you a bottle of water that will cure all your ills for $100 then skips town, most people would see it as your fault for being so gullible. Someday there will be some technological or social way to easily differentiate deep fakes from real video the same way you can with photoshopped images today.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#268

Post by Aeolun »

overthemoon wrote: post #203
Aeolun wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 befo…

> 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?

Why do you assume it’s shared with no-one? The representations change, but I can guarantee you that Bianna the Beautiful had several suggestive clay figures created of her without her permission.

Not to say that that was necessarily great, Bianna would probably have been upset too. But trying to fight the method of representation instead of the sharing seems like a fools errant to me.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#269

Post by lonelyasacloud »

UncleEntity wrote: post #219
kefka_p wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> With that said almost every use-case cited was financial or monetary gain whereas I enquired about social utility and value. 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

> It could allow people to petition their government [0] without having someone bust down their door at 3am and disappear forever.

Surely just wearing a mask - virtual or otherwise - does the job without the deep fakery?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#270

Post by Hard_Space »

I think it's pretty obvious that autoencoder deepfake tech and similar technologies are going to be useful, maybe even essential in visual effects. The perceived problem seems to be that the 'irresponsible rabble' also have access to it.

But as the barrier to entry for really convincing output goes up (768px /1024px training pipelines, and beyond), and it suddenly becomes something that one person alone can't really do well any more, the 'amateur' stuff is going to look far worse to people than it does now. You just have to wait for that barrier to rise, and I can tell you as a VFX insider that that is happening right now.

Deepfakes are the reverse of CGI, which began as an inaccessible technology and gradually became accessible, before the scale of its use in VFX reversed that again.

Now, assuming you can either afford or will pirate the right software, you could probably match any CGI VFX shot in a major blockbuster if you gave up your job and worked on it non-stop for a year of 18-hour days (assuming you'd already been through the steep learning curve of the pipeline). So it's out of reach, really, and so will the best deepfakes be.

This stuff everyone is so scared of will end up gate-kept, if only for logistical reasons (never mind any new laws that would address it) - at least at the quality that's so feared in these comments.

Post reply on HN