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

271–280 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#271

Post by 4ggr0 »

sneak wrote: post #241
4ggr0 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Would you care

Yes.

> why?

Because it's insanely creepy for someone to photoshop my face onto a naked body without asking me and then post said picture online?!? Especially if it's done so well that people don't notice that it's not actually me.

If your rebuttal is that "not everyone cares if deepfaked photos of themselves are being published online" then the answer is pretty simple: As long as you don't know if someone minds it, don't fucking do it.

It's really alienating to me when I think about the fact that we're discussing if it's okay to upload deepfaked nudes of someone without their consent.

The only reason I can come up with is that some people have probably consumed lots of deepfakes and now don't want admit that it's maybe a bit creepy and wrong.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#272

Post by mihaic »

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…

Agree, I've come to believe that social ethics is something that needs to be indoctrinated from an early age, otherwise it can't naturally be developed in many people.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#273

Post by alickz »

_djo_ wrote: post #247
bondarchuk wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if I photoshop my crush's face onto a naked body? Wouldn't that be similar to having a personal deepfake?

I agree with the person you're replying to, you can't stop people doing these things in the privacy of their own home and these deepfakes are functionally similar to other photo / video editing techniques.

_Distributing_ those photoshops / deepfakes is another thing entirely though, and one I am fully against.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#274

Post by _djo_ »

pc86 wrote: post #267
fps_doug wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someo…

We're steadily breaking down all mechanisms that ordinary people can use to trust information they're getting, such as getting a video call from a member of their family and recognising the face and voice.

All previous scams relied on con artists using various means to pretend to either be trustworthy in their own right despite being strangers or as representing some trustworthy institution. But having people being able to act as your family members is a whole other issue. You can't claim that this is no different from other scams.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#275

Post by pwpw »

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…

If you get a motorcycle license in the US, you’ll likely take the MSF safety course where one point is hammered home: a crash is caused by an interaction of factors.

Imagine a car suddenly swerves in front of a motorcycle rider, which causes him to crash. Perhaps it was a rainy day, the rider was talking on the phone, they were traveling slightly above the speed limit, and they were sitting in the car’s blind spot. It was the car that was at fault for causing the crash, but if one of the other factors in the rider’s situation was eliminated, he may have been able to find a safe escape path to perform an emergency maneuver and avoid the crash.

Ultimately, it’s the final piece in a chain of events that directly causes it, but there are a multitude of variables that are necessary to lead to the situation. Blame can be assigned to a higher degree for a single party, but I believe blame can also be applied to varying degrees to multiple parties.

It seems the authors of the tool in question do not see where their technology fits into a larger puzzle. They may not be the ones who ultimately use it for malice, but it is worrying that they so readily shrug off ethical considerations when they have agency over this piece of the equation.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#276

Post by _djo_ »

alickz wrote: post #273
_djo_ wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What if I photoshop my crush's face onto a naked body? Wouldn't that be similar to having a personal deepfake? I agree with the person you're replying to, you can't stop people doing these things in the privacy of their own home and these deepfakes are functionally similar to other photo / video editing techniques. _Distributing_ those photoshops / deepfakes is another thing entirely though, and one I am fully agains…

The question wasn't whether people can be stopped from doing it, because for the most part they can't be, but whether it's moral. Or at least different in a moral sense from merely imagining someone else doing those actions.

And yes, photoshopping your crush's face onto a naked body is just as unethical and immoral, even if done in the privacy of your own home, for the same reasons I mentioned above.

Compared to deep fakes, however, it has a much higher effort, lower reward, and less realism, which acts as its own inhibitor. Deep fake generators are becoming trivial to use, and not just for one or two pictures but for as many videos as you'd want. That's going to result in a very different driver of obsession.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#277

Post by epistemer »

yipbub wrote: post #11

I'm convinced that this idea that technology is completely neutral is wrong. It is not neutral in the face of human psychology. The human species is a different animal that the human individual, and it is powerful, but does not make truly conscious decisions. Once you let the genie out of the bottle, a wish will be made. A technology might not be inherently bad, but neither are knives, and we don't leave those lying…

The idea technology is completely neutral is obviously stupid and obviously wrong.

Neil Postman has two amazing books on this subject.

It is not even that technology is good or bad, any technology will have good and bad aspects but the main issue is that we have surrendered culture and agency to technology as a society.

There is no going back or fix now. The fix for all was a culture that devalues bad uses of technology so that there is no money in creating something shitty. We basically have the opposite of that. Even completely useless technology is worth a ton of money because of our culture.

The solution is not Luddism either. Especially a ridiculous techno-Luddism.

For me, the Faustian bargain with technology has already been signed in blood and there is nothing to do other than enjoy the roller coaster ride.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#278

Post by jevgeni »

Felkomo wrote: post #261
jevgeni wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course you can, even if somebody else does it. Case in point: any penal code.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#279

Post by Felkomo »

jevgeni wrote: post #278
Felkomo wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Of course you can, even if somebody else does it. Case in point: any penal code.

How can you force stopping development of software?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#280

Post by IdiocyInAction »

mihaic wrote: post #272
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…

Agree, I've come to believe that social ethics is something that needs to be indoctrinated from an early age, otherwise it can't naturally be developed in many people.

A lot of nasty ideologues that caused massive suffering also believed that
Post reply on HN