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

341–350 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#341

Post by SergeAx »

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…

There are no facets in the case from the book. Germans are 100% responsible for parents' deaths. All other things are just coincidences. Easy as that.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#342

Post by kefka_p »

pjc50 wrote: post #108
kefka_p wrote: post #25

Can anybody demonstrate a legitimate use of deepfake software? Has it ever been used to facilitate a socially positive or desirable outcome? While I recognize my experiences are far from definitive, I hazard most would be hard pressed to name anything positive that came out of deepfake technology. edit: I’ll take your knee-jerk DV, and any others, as an admission of an inability to speak to positive utility of this t…

What is the boundary between "deepfake" and "photoshop" (i.e. regular human "fake" or edit?) I suspect it's going to become popular for both consensual-deepfake of oneself (PR, magazines, actors, pop stars, any form of public speaker) and "bought out" deepfake (actors selling out their image rights and then losing creative control; dead actors, etc.) The political-deepfake is really going to accelerate the debate ove…

The number of man hours that would be necessary to plausibly fake even a short film in Photoshop, if I had to guess. It strikes me as analogous to owning sidearms versus BMGs and rocket launchers. One of these tools makes doing bad things far easier.

Another analogy. Say somebody makes some hacking kit. Say it uses zero day exploits to compromise Windows, Mac, and Linux. Would any of us take issue with that? Would it be a different story if it was made into a push-button tool like WinNuke was in the 1990s? Or automated to the extent that somebody who can make a word doc could employ it against your systems? Is there really no feasible line of distinction here, in your eyes?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#343

Post by _djo_ »

Noumenon72 wrote: post #339
_djo_ wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. The reasons you mentioned above were "it feels more real than imagination" and "a person could go back to it over and over, enhancing their obsession with the non-consenting person". These are not moral bads that require a "no lusting after people,…

I never said this was about a "no lusting after people, even in your heart" rule, nor do I believe it should be. If someone lusts after someone else in their head and never does anything to harm the other person there's obviously nothing wrong with that.

It's immoral because it's creating something persistent that could harm someone without their consent, amongst other things.

I also question your assertion that obsessions of this type are always harmless, because it's obvious that many are not and escalate into outright stalking, confrontations, or worse, and anything that makes that sort of obsession more likely or helps to enhance it where it exists increases the chances of that happening.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#345

Post by rsr »

penjelly wrote: post #336
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…

> technology isnt inevitable i disagree, society could stop inventing and humanity would likely continue to exist. However, that would would require the population to stop being interested in the development of technology which i think wont happen. The point is, if this engineer doesnt write this code, someone else will. If a person can imagine a tool, someone will eventually want to make it a reality. i think deepfa…

We all have responsibilities as technologists to be ethical (to our own standards, at least), and to keep in mind the impact of the things we build. That applies regardless of whether other tech with a negative social impact exists, or for that matter whether it will exist. You can still be a good person, even if no one else is doing so, and you're under no pressure to be a bad person (in this context, anyway).

Re: Stop developing this technology

#346

Post by tomjen3 »

Hamuko wrote: post #220
rbanffy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> strains my assumption of good faith debate regarding their ethics. Let's flip the argument upside down. Let's imagine you want to produce porn content, but don't want to be recognized. This technology allows that.

I've already seen porn where someone's face is blurred. And whose face are you going to put in that porn with this?

The readme for the repo has examples of AI generated faces. Think this person does not exist, but better.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#347

Post by tomjen3 »

rbanffy wrote: post #119
pjc50 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've not had the test case, but in places where nonconsensual or "revenge" porn is criminalized, deepfakes may well turn out to be illegal. They're certainly distressing for the victim.

It's already illegal for a person to pretend to be another real person without their consent.

This may be the case in some places, and fraud is illegal in general, but should it be illegal to make parodies of politicians using paid actors? I think most people would say no.

Then why should it be illegal to do the same with an AI?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#348

Post by tomjen3 »

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.

If you need to indoctrinate somebody with a certain belief from an early age, then your belief must be so poor that it cannot be used to convince adults, so how can such an action be justified?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#349

Post by eutropia »

kefka_p wrote: post #25

Can anybody demonstrate a legitimate use of deepfake software? Has it ever been used to facilitate a socially positive or desirable outcome? While I recognize my experiences are far from definitive, I hazard most would be hard pressed to name anything positive that came out of deepfake technology. edit: I’ll take your knee-jerk DV, and any others, as an admission of an inability to speak to positive utility of this t…

I've been playing TTRPGs via videochat with my friends since pandemic, and I've often thought about setting up video avatars for our characters. It would be especially cool for the DM to be able to switch personas on the fly, and for players to have their characters in video chat.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#350

Post by sneak »

4ggr0 wrote: post #271
sneak wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

I just don't understand why anyone would care?

You don't need consent from anyone depicted in visual art to make visual art. It literally has nothing to do with them.

I see no moral, ethical, or consent issue with deepfakes whatsoever. People are allowed to make whatever sort of CGI they can imagine, and, most critically: they should be.

Post reply on HN