381–390 of 410 posts
Technology isn't inherently good or evil, it's neutral. If Company A / Country A / Person A won't do it, then Company B / Country B / Person B will do it and use it to bankrupt you / attack and possibly kill you / take advantage of you. It's that simple.
If they do not make them FOSS in public, then the Conspiracy will invent their own and use it for bad uses only.
Furthermore, even if a program is written, you can decide not to use it; that it is written (as FOSS) means that you can read its working, now that someone else wrote about it. You can also execute it on a computer, if that is what is desired. Also, if it is well known enough, then hopefully if someone does use it deceptively against you, then you might be able to guess, or to figure it out (although it might be difficult, at least it might be possible if it is known enough).
I have no intention using such a thing, but someone else might figure out uses of it.
(For example, maybe there are some uses that can be used with movies, for example, if the original actor has been injured for an extended period of time (including if they are dead) or if they want to make up a picture of someone who does not exist. (Although, they should avoid being deceptive. For example, include in the credits, the mention of using such a thing.) Even if it is considered acceptable though, some people will prefer to make movies without it, and such a thing should be acceptable too anyways.)
(I think even in Star Trek, in story, in some episodes they made deepfake movies of someone. And even in Star Trek, both good and bad uses are possible. Or, am I mistaken?)
Nevertheless, there may be some dangers involved, but there are potential danger with anything; if you are careful, then you can try to avoid it, hopefully.
an age old discussion. ultimately i prefer for this technology to be developed in the open on github and be aware of it (and able to combat nefarious use of it). the alternative is that its being developed hidden and used by the most vile and evil without many being aware of it (which it most definitely will) As with nuclear, the cats out of the bag or the babys bathwater(?) already spilled, no way to turn back the c…
now that it is in the open , any high school boy can create some porn deepfakes of their classmates and suicide rate will probably rise. Let's see if you still hold this view when one of your family members is a victim
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Do you assume most adults are rational in their decision-making process and are convinced by arguments? I'm mostly seeing the opposite in practice, and that indoctrination seems merely necessary to balance things out.
This kind of technology is far too useful to repressive regimes and those who wish to do nasty things with it. This means that the incentive to develop this technology is already there, and so it WILL be developed no matter how much people wish it wouldn't. The only difference at this point is whether some of the implementations are developed in public view or not. If none are public, then all of them will be done in…
> it WILL be developed no matter how much people wish it wouldn't. Sure, but there's a value in delaying that development. Delaying harm is a valid tactic.
What utterly horrible minds in that comment thread. The justification that other bad things happen means we can reasonably create more evil is disgusting. Those posses a complete lack of a moral compass.
Whether it is evil or not, we can debate, but let's start by assuming good faith by all debate participants.
Technology can have good and bad uses. If they do not make them FOSS in public, then the Conspiracy will invent their own and use it for bad uses only. Furthermore, even if a program is written, you can decide not to use it; that it is written (as FOSS) means that you can read its working, now that someone else wrote about it. You can also execute it on a computer, if that is what is desired. Also, if it is well know…
Also, as mentioned in some other comments: "Alternatively, having tools like this easily available makes it easier to raise awareness and build teams to combat them." Another thing mentioned in another comment: "The entities with interest in it have bigger pockets than some random open source project. ... There are many small entities with interest in such a technology which don't have huge budgets. Small terrorist / extremist organizations pushing a specific agenda." However, in the small case, it is perhaps not as impactful, now that it is FOSS and that it allows others to raise awareness and combat them as described by the other comment. In the big case, where others could make it independently, having this FOSS implementation helps even more against it, since they would otherwise just make it up by themself.
A lot of people in the comments here are saying that this is beneficial because it will teach people that they can't trust video or audio. But I don't see how that makes sense because this isn't some neutered or weakened form of the technology. That's like saying shooting people makes them more aware of gun violence.
It's like releasing some software that cracks all encryption (or more accurately, authentication), before of which only elite members of society had access to.
It's not a physical weapon, it's an information-security weapon; I don't think the gun metaphor is appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you assume most adults are rational in their decision-making process and are convinced by arguments? I'm mostly seeing the opposite in practice, and that indoctrination seems merely necessary to balance things out.
I assume that anybody who needs to indoctrinate people into their believes has believes that they cannot justify rationally.
The flat-earthers are an extreme example, but not unique in any way.