Stop developing this technology • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop developing this technology

#321

Post by lonelyasacloud » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 5:19 PM UTC

The problem here is how our societies handle the arrival of new technology, not the technology itself.

Here it's obvious what's going to happen without robust legislation protecting the likeness of all individuals (and not just special-case celebs) from the non-consensual generation of new material.

The fact that such legislation is unlikely to happen before an awful lot of suffering has occurred is a testament both to naive belief that everything new is good. And to legislative processes with a bandwidth from the age of sail that is riddled with vested interests to handle the downsides when scaling breaks the happy path assumptions.

Focusing efforts on the legislative process seems likely to be more productive than point solutions that rely on techies and scientists not to develop tech that can be used for nefarious purposes.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#322

Post by return_to_monke » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 5:32 PM UTC

if this was a discussion on generative AI, I'd agree that the cat is out of the bag and there's no stopping this now.

BUT.

what are people using deepfakes for, in good faith? can someone provide one example that isn't malicious?

the best I could imagine is maybe amateur filmmakers deepfaking their faces onto existing footage to cut costs - but it doesn't seem that this outweighs the drawbacks

Re: Stop developing this technology

#323

Post by bayindirh » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 5:32 PM UTC

JohnFen wrote: post #289

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.

"If we don't, then others will" is a bankrupt argument put forth by people who are trying to justify doing things they know are harmful. It would be more legitimate if it were "we won't, but others will".

This is what I was trying to point too, and why I added the "ban it, then" argument. Because there's a considerable amount of people who operate with the "if it's not illegal, then I can do this" mindset, and there's a big intersection of this two mindsets.

At least putting a ban on it will make people think, I hope.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#324

Post by bondarchuk » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

lovemenot wrote: post #208

bondarchuk wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So imagine if we had done what you suggest and slowed the spread of radio and cinema. People have barely any idea that such things are possible. And then one day Hitler comes along after surreptitiously developing radio and cinema, and distributes it among the German population, and uses it for his propaganda campaigns. Would that have been better?

Timing is all. You may dislike the analogy - sorry I don't mean to antagonise. At the start of the pandemic, and in the middle and towards the end there were always voices arguing for "herd immunity now! Let the inevitable happen, as it must". For me, those voices were too early, until other things had fallen into place. Then they were eventually right.

No worries, I thought it was a good analogy.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#325

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 5:50 PM UTC

jolmg wrote: post #320

JohnFen wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I draw a distinction that you don't here. Development is not about the expansion of knowledge, it's about producing things. Science is about the expansion of knowledge. As a society, we very often conflate the two, but they're really very different things.

They're very intertwined. A paperclip factory produces things; they don't do tech development (shouldn't do much at least). Tech development is about pushing the edge. Science, obtaining more knowledge about the universe we have to work with, helps, but it's also about finding new applications for what we've already known. Tech development doesn't necessitate the production of things, even intangible ones. Technology…

Technology is the practical application of knowledge about the world. Science is the acquisition of such knowledge. There certainly can be an overlap in the Venn diagram here, but the distinction remains valid and important.

In any case, I was not saying that your perspective is incorrect. I was just saying that my worldview seems rather different from yours.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#326

Post by salt4034 » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

return_to_monke wrote: post #322

if this was a discussion on generative AI, I'd agree that the cat is out of the bag and there's no stopping this now. BUT. what are people using deepfakes for, in good faith? can someone provide one example that isn't malicious? the best I could imagine is maybe amateur filmmakers deepfaking their faces onto existing footage to cut costs - but it doesn't seem that this outweighs the drawbacks

Film studios can use deepfakes to bring back actors who passed away. Whistle-blowers could use it to have video calls with journalists without being identified. Privacy-minded regular folks could use it to have a YouTube/Twitch channel without revealing their identity.

These are just a few good-faith applications, but I think the list goes on.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#327

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 5:53 PM UTC

bayindirh wrote: post #323

JohnFen wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If we don't, then others will" is a bankrupt argument put forth by people who are trying to justify doing things they know are harmful. It would be more legitimate if it were "we won't, but others will".

This is what I was trying to point too, and why I added the "ban it, then" argument. Because there's a considerable amount of people who operate with the "if it's not illegal, then I can do this" mindset, and there's a big intersection of this two mindsets. At least putting a ban on it will make people think, I hope.

Agreed.

I'm not sure how I feel about "ban it" -- I can argue that either way -- but I do think that arguments that banning something is pointless because people will do it anyway are misguided.

Regulations don't eliminate the effects of bad actors, but they do reduce the number and severity of them.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#328

Post by kefka_p » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 6:07 PM UTC

UncleEntity wrote: post #306

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

No doubt, but they wanted a non-capitalistic reason why this technology isn’t The Debil. And having subtle clues from watching a person’s face while they’re proposing whatever action to overthrow the patriarchy is more convincing than some random person wearing a Guy Fawkes mask talking about revolution for the umpteenth time.

Whoa, whoa, I never claimed the technology was the “debil”. I merely asked for examples of viable, moral, unique uses of this tech.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#329

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 6:10 PM UTC

Veen wrote: post #307

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…

What's as worrying, judging by the comments here and in that GitHub thread, is that there is no correlation between technical ability and ethical understanding. Perhaps naively, I'd have thought someone intelligent enough to develop a technology like this would also be intelligent enough to understand the complex ethical issues it raises. It seems, unfortunately, that there is no such correlation. In fact, anecdotall…

> Perhaps naively, I'd have thought someone intelligent enough to develop a technology like this would also be intelligent enough to understand the complex ethical issues it raises. It seems, unfortunately, that there is no such correlation.

Correct. There is a tendency to think that because a person is exceptionally intelligent or skilled in one area, they must also be intelligent in other areas. It's simply not the case. An expert is authoritative in the areas of their expertise, but outside of those, their opinions are no more likely to be correct than anyone else's.

This error is often leveraged in persuasion campaigns -- thinking that, for instance, a brilliant physicist's opinions on social policies are more likely to be accurate than any random person on the street.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#330

Post by Apofis » Thu, Feb 02, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

mihaic wrote: post #34

HN seems to actively work on a cognitive dissonance: on the one hand producing inspirational stories of entrepreneurs changing the world and on the other abandoning all hope that technology/market forces can be controlled in any way. I'm thinking now this is to justify away the collective guilt of bringing into the mainstream harmful products. It seems to come from the same origins as "crypto can't be regulated", "go…

The old: Encryption is evil because it is used to hide information... let's ban encryption. Breaking encryption is evil because it can be used to steal information... let's incriminate breaking encryption.

Let's just get it over with... Technology is evil. Let's ban technology.