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

361–370 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#361

Post by JoeyBananas »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #244
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…

In my experience, in the US, the lawyers will find the "deep pockets" to go after, and may establish precedent. In the US, we have the Second Amendment, which has probably prevented many, many lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers (but there have still been a few). Unless there's a constitutional amendment, protecting the tech, it's pretty likely that some hungry lawyers will figure out how to go up the food…

This technology is protected by the first ammendment. The first ammendment is the main reason why the law does not have much to say about what kind of programs people cannot share.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#362

Post by nix23 »

zzbzq wrote: post #235
nix23 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Technology isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice we make. See and that's the problem, you can just talk about "you" not "we", because someone else will do it. Technology, and with it information cannot be stopped.

"I didn't murder that man, your honor, he would have died eventually anyway."

Incredible stupid comment...just to extend your logic the thing you type right now is "enabling" that "murdering"...so does the invention of the wheel enabling fast wars...or bring you fast into a hospital per ambulance.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#363

Post by sterlind »

pjc50 wrote: post #105
jl6 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

99% agree. The 1% is for the potential for deepfakes to solve blackmail. If producing deepfakes becomes trivial, any blackmail threat can be dismissed with “Whatever, I’ll just say it’s a deepfake”.

This is not how humans work. False statements about someone damage that person, even once everybody knows they're false.

Personally, I've been on the fence about doing sex work. On the one hand, I'm nervous about people identifying me based on my face or identifying marks, but lately I feel like I shouldn't care, I should be open about it and that way I can't be blackmailed.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#364

Post by jacooper »

lovemenot wrote: post #77
jolmg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument wasn't "Doing something bad is fine because others are", it's "You're trying to stop a bad thing happening by stopping some people upstream from doing something that's perfectly fine. That's going to be ineffective." But you're right about me not putting a lot of thought. I didn't think this would need more arguing than that. I still believe that tech is fundamentally neutral, and as such so is its devel…

There are others - not you - who will justify their own actions thusly: the technology existed, its better that the good guys (me - of course) should use it before the bad guys do. In the space between both equivocations (yours and the other guy's), lies the potential for moral abuse.

What even is a good guy use for Deep fakes besides some memes that get old fast?

Re: Stop developing this technology

#365

Post by yencabulator »

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. It literally has nothing to do with them.

Yes you do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights

Re: Stop developing this technology

#367

Post by jevgeni »

Felkomo wrote: post #279
jevgeni wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How can you force stopping development of software?

One of the more egregious examples: https://www.wired.com/2011/03/aleynikov-sentencing/

Re: Stop developing this technology

#368

Post by jevgeni »

dmingod666 wrote: post #181
jevgeni wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As GeorgeMD pointed out, there's some required reading.

What George is saying makes total sense. Why I had commented on your post was I couldn't understand your reasoning that somehow relativity and the 2 bombs couldn't have happened without each other I found that quite bizarre..

> that somehow relativity and the 2 bombs couldn't have happened without each other I found that quite bizarre..

Sounds about right, because that's literally not what I said.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#369

Post by jevgeni »

fsflover wrote: post #291
jevgeni wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most crypto is controlled by a few key players with even less oversight and accountability than the governments.

"Controlled" in your sentence doesn't mean the same as the one for the ordinary money.

You're right, the difference is even more stark.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#370

Post by jevgeni »

x-complexity wrote: post #144
jevgeni wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which are blocked from pulling from Github?

> Which are blocked from pulling from Github? In the case that they're blocked: They'd only need one unrestricted computer to pull their libraries into & subsequently copy that onto siloed off workstations. It's not like anyone will actually care to notice. In the case that they aren't blocked: Business as usual.

Exactly.
Post reply on HN