I wished we would be in a position where OBS was not needed.
Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
301–310 of 336 posts
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#302I wished we would be in a position where OBS was not needed.
Why so? I am genuinely interested. I am one of the authors.
Other virtual cameras would work too, by the way. OBS is the README as it's the easiest to set up.
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
This argument echos the same justifications made for the US’ cryptography embargoes in the 1990s. (Rightfully) labeling code as speech is what allowed us to break down that barrier. Would you also be questioning the ethics of djb in 1995? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein#Bernstein_...
No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufact…
You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint.
Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those who do not fit the norm to contribute their talents in ways we might not otherwise anticipate.
The second — prior restraint to enforce “trust and safety” - requires exerting authoritarian or paternalistic control over others to achieve its aims. In the process, it gives those who prioritize power over others the tools they need to undeservedly secure it, and invariably leads to individual, social, and institutional ossification.
Having things go wrong is a good and necessary thing; a perfect world is a fantastically dull and oppressive one.
These views did not arise from a lack of ethical consideration; they were a very considered ethical foundation on which the internet was originally built. In many respects, it was originally built to stand in opposition (or at least offer an alternative) to the staid and oppressive institutions that prioritize trust and safety.
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#304> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…
Exposing these tools to broader use will accelerate the development of mitigations, which is a net win for regular users IMHO.
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Jobs held up the first smartphone and we all started cheering and fantasizing, did any of us think it would lead to this? Jobs didn’t hold up the first smartphone and smartphone proliferation has little to do with the AI research that led to deepfakes.
I was more trying to point out that what we might hope comes out of new technology in the future may not necessarily come true, or the benefits might come with as-yet-unknown downsides that only become visible by the technology being proliferated extensively (and irreversibly).
You keep saying “we” and “us”. Who the fuck are you talking about? Speak for yourself.
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)
Religion claims that certain things are true when they contradict observable reality. There's no fundamental difference between claimed gods and deepfaked ones.
The deepfaked ones actually speak.
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#307> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…
If I stab someone with a knife, who is responsible? The inventor of knives? The knife‘s manufacturer? The store who sold me the knife? I would say the responsibility lays 100% with myself. I do not think it makes sense to pursue inventors for what happens to their creations, unless they actively encourage misuse.
Responsibility is a ghost. Like God, Love, Honor, etc. You’re not actually talking about anything.
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main value in releasing tools like this is to demonstrate weakness in our current security controls. A key weakness of biometrics is that there is no secret data. Open source tooling like this help people understand that.
I wish I didn’t have to scroll this far to find your rational perspective. Lets take the famous LockPickingLawyer of YouTube, is he responsible for every crime where the thief defeats a lock that he has demonstrated the weaknesses of? I would say “no!”. Exposing a weakness puts the onus of securing said weaknesses on those that sell technology/devices/services that market themselves as “secure”.
This is just some rationalization that security nerds like to regurgitate on each other.
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't. Because once created something will have a life of its own. The question is only meaningful prior to creating it. This goes for the atomic bomb, the invention of gunpowder, strong cryptography and any other tool. But if you don't care about ethics then it is obvious why you would not ask that question to begin with and I think that technology without ethics is no better than your average arms manufact…
You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint. Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those w…
I don't think we have read the same bits about the history of the internet. Openness and individual empowerment had absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the net.
The main purpose as far as I have it down was to create a method for (government) researchers to communicate and to have a reliable communications network in wartime.
https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtm...
Feel free to rewrite history any way you want it though. Perhaps you were confusing the world-wide-web and the internet?
Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your "worst case" depends greatly on who the select group is. Is it movie studios making 9 figure budgets, or is it any obsessed person who can figure out how to find and install software. Obviously, it's hard to imagine many situations like that, but you can imagine a process that required a 8-figure quantum supercomputer.
history say you cannot control how selected the selected group is, no matter the implications, i.e. nuclear bomb secrets from manatthan project finding their way into russian hands https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spies-who-spilled-ato...
That's just not true. If you couldn't control the spread at all, some terrorist group would have already detonated one.