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

351–360 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#351

Post by roundandround »

datpiff wrote: post #298
alickz wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What if I photoshop my crush's face onto a naked body? Wouldn't that be similar to having a personal deepfake? Yes, and it's already widely considered to be really fucking weird behavior

My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets.

Of course it took years for me to perfect my artistic skill in the area of erotic fingernail sculptures and by that time anyone could afford a Photoshop license.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#352

Post by tgv »

jolmg wrote: post #101
tgv wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we can't. Developing "tech" is an action bound by morals like any other action. Cigarette production has tech in it. They don't just grow on trees. It was developed, and keeps being developed, by people well aware of the effects of smoking.

You're opening another can of worms with that example. An adult, informed smoker that takes care to not cause second-hand smoking and that doesn't have any dependents, causes harm only to themselves. If they think that the reduction of stress or whatever else they gain at the tradeoff of their health is worth it, that's their choice. That's part of their bodily autonomy. As such, the tech is still not inherently bad.

You're conveniently dismissing a few concerns and from that drawing the conclusion it isn't inherently bad?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#353

Post by ngcazz »

vault_ wrote: post #246
low_tech_love wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there is a big confusion about building the technology and using it in some specific, wrong way. Surely anyone here will agree that building the technology itself should not be forbidden. You can do it for some valid reason, or simply for fun. It’s not for anyone to judge or stop you from doing it. Those who use it for some nefarious reason must then answer for that. Guns are the obvious compariso…

What's the confusion? The allegation is that choosing to build this represents, at best, incredibly poor judgment. The GitHub issue and GP post are good faith appeals to kindest possible interpretations of this work. To use your own example, explosives can be useful, but if you discovered that your neighbor was building pipe bombs in his garage, you'd probably want them to stop. "I'm not gonna use them. I just think…

Plus... they're going to use it.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#354

Post by cutemonster »

JohnFen wrote: post #329
Veen wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> intelligent in other areas

I think you mean "knowledgeable". There is a correlation though, but never mind.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#355

Post by mansoon »

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…

These people are successful.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#356

Post by peyton »

_djo_ wrote: post #340
elondaits wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Argentina they’ve been scamming people by pretending to be a relative for years now! No AI required. Somebody calls you in the middle of night, distraught, and crying says “mom?” or “dad?”. Then someone interrupts, claims your son or daughter has been abducted (by now you probably have given them their name when responding to the initial plea) and requests money to be dropped at some location where a motorcycle pi…

That sort of scam has been possible, sure, but it depends on both the person being phoned being startled and half asleep, and unable to reach the person or someone else near them in subsequent calls. You're right that I shouldn't have been so absolutist in saying 'all' previous scams, but this is an edge case that doesn't equate to what's becoming possible with real time deep fakes. What this sort of tech is enabling…

Scamming an individual is already a ton of work. The amount of effort this shaves off the process is small.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#357

Post by 4ggr0 »

sneak wrote: post #350
4ggr0 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 .

> You don't need consent from anyone depicted in visual art to make visual art

We're talking about (mr)deepfakes. Which is visual art, yes. Nude visual art.

That's kinda the point. The nudity is what makes it immediately not okay.

If you just deepfake someones face onto Jason Stathams body, they will probably enjoy and laugh about it.

If you deepfake their face onto someone who's getting roughly f*cked in the ass, they might not like it that much.

But then again, not just nudity is wrong. Deepfaking someones face into a video to hurt them is wrong as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I really think that AI Ethics should be pushed harder and more seriously.

If someone deepfakes their favorite actresses head into a porn video, I still think that it's wrong. What I would appreciate is if I can at least agree with this person, that what they're doing is not 100% okay.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#358

Post by JohnFen »

cutemonster wrote: post #354
JohnFen wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> intelligent in other areas I think you mean "knowledgeable". There is a correlation though, but never mind.

Yes, you are correct. Or, perhaps more accurately, "authoritative". Being an expert in one field does not mean that a person's opinions in other fields are more likely to be correct.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#359

Post by harimau777 »

entropi wrote: post #240
harimau777 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmmm. Not necessarily. I mean if what you did does not change the outcome in any way, then is what you did even evil? If you have no marginal impact, can you ever do good or evil? I am not sure actually. I realize that this could also apply to lower rank soldiers involved in some war crimes, etc. so I guess it is not that clear cut. But would you blame a random soldier of lowest rank for carrying out terrible orders…

I don't know that I'd blame them, but I would consider it an act of evil

This is a bit of a tangent, but that's something I never liked about referring to evil things as "inhumane". It seems to me that hurting others in order to help friends, family, or self is very human. In that case, morality is choosing to act against human nature by doing the right thing at the expense of self or loved ones.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#360

Post by tgv »

kyleyeats wrote: post #78
tgv wrote: post #75

Remember: if you helped develop it, you're responsible for it. If it kills people, you share the blame. So, what's the possible scenario for that outcome? Well, look at the upcoming elections in Nigeria. The BBC writes: "With an estimated 80 million Nigerians online, social media plays a huge role in national debates about politics. Our investigation uncovered different tactics used to reach more people on Twitter. M…

This reply to your comment could only exist because you posted your comment. Are you responsible for anything I say in this box? You enabled it!

Exaggerating one aspect of argument into ridiculousness and ignoring the rest does not show "good faith".
Post reply on HN