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

391–400 of 410 posts

Re: Stop developing this technology

#391

Post by GoblinSlayer »

bayindirh wrote: post #185
suilied wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the sentiment but I disagree. It's just another disruptive piece of technology that people will have to adjust to. If you can't trust a digital face, then nobody will and using this tech for scamming purposes will simply fizzle out after an initial "adjustment period". I know that sounds rough but society might react differently than you think, i.e.: with digital faces being useless for identifying peopl…

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.

> So regulate and ban the technology, then.

Except for criminals and CIA.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#392

Post by GoblinSlayer »

bayindirh wrote: post #229
grendelt wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So regulate and ban the technology, then. When has that ever worked? What banned technology is conceived of but not developed because some government entity said not to? I think the "if we don't, then others will" is part of the natural progression of technology. Whatever the next logical step of development is, that's where development efforts will flow. Some might not want to go there, but some will. Someone bann…

I see banning things is useless in the long run, but at least some people will think about why it might be banned. I was thinking about throwing a wrench to the machine while saying "ban it" to make it stutter, like breaking the chain of obedience in Milgram Experiment, or like the woman who walks up to Zimbardo and stops The Prison Experiment (see his TED talk). Because, as a hacker and programmer, I believe that we…

Trying to protect low security by censorship is a repetition of history: https://www.zdnet.com/article/chilling-effect-lawsuits-threa...

It's like banning Iliad, because it describes troyan horse.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#393

Post by bayindirh »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #392
bayindirh wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see banning things is useless in the long run, but at least some people will think about why it might be banned. I was thinking about throwing a wrench to the machine while saying "ban it" to make it stutter, like breaking the chain of obedience in Milgram Experiment, or like the woman who walks up to Zimbardo and stops The Prison Experiment (see his TED talk). Because, as a hacker and programmer, I believe that we…

Trying to protect low security by censorship is a repetition of history: https://www.zdnet.com/article/chilling-effect-lawsuits-threa... It's like banning Iliad, because it describes troyan horse.

I think you're missing the point here. Because I don't say anything in the line of that.

What I say is, this is a double-use technology and dangerous beyond a certain point, so it might need to be regulated or banned at the end of the day.

In an ideal world, we shouldn't need this, but we don't live that ideal world.

For example, I can't independently develop an amateur rocket which can land to an area of my choosing by the means of actively directing itself, beyond a certain accuracy and precision. Because it'll be a homing missile. On the same essence I can say that this technology can be used to damage other people.

Or, I can't get some enriched uranium to build myself a small, teapot sized reactor to power my house during power outages.

Can we say that we're censoring research in this areas too, because they're low security things?

This is same with latest A.I. developments. However I'm a bit busy to open these cans today.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#394

Post by alickz »

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

Fully agree with ya there, but is it _immoral_? I would say no

Re: Stop developing this technology

#395

Post by GoblinSlayer »

bayindirh wrote: post #393
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to protect low security by censorship is a repetition of history: https://www.zdnet.com/article/chilling-effect-lawsuits-threa... It's like banning Iliad, because it describes troyan horse.

I think you're missing the point here. Because I don't say anything in the line of that. What I say is, this is a double-use technology and dangerous beyond a certain point, so it might need to be regulated or banned at the end of the day. In an ideal world, we shouldn't need this, but we don't live that ideal world. For example, I can't independently develop an amateur rocket which can land to an area of my choosing…

Nuclear technology is low security indeed, and it's a technical problem, and uranium isn't exactly abundant element. Untrusted data is a problem of stupidity in comparison. But stupidity causes problems with any technology. It "spoons can harm people" tier problem.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#396

Post by dorchadas »

JasonFruit wrote: post #254

I think it's inevitable that sub-societies will form that accept technology only in ways that preserve the humanity of our interactions. We use the term "disruptive" all the time around here, but what's being disrupted is increasingly close to the heart of human life: the ability to engage with the ideas, emotions, and opinions of another human being, and to know them as a person. If a computer can convincingly imper…

I've been having this argument over the past few days with some friends/acquaintances in a discord server. I just keep getting told that it's all just 'sensationalist' reactions to new tech. Some of them are quite gung-ho on the 'progress' and never stop to question what it's doing to our humanity and what it means to be human.

I personally think the internet inherently devalues the humanity of interactions - even on voice chat on Discord or some other service. There's something missing from what we get in person that we're losing out on, and I think that's part of why the internet is, generally, a cesspool (doubly so with anonymity thrown in). But we can't escape -- go to a concert, for instance, and how many people are actually paying attention versus just capturing the moment to prove they were there and share it on Snap/Insta?

Like you, I fear we're going a bad way...and they're all just "I can't wait to see how this changes things!" without ever seeing to stop and seriously question things I feel. Their arguments seem to come down to "Well, it's perfect connection for me and I think it's neat"...but then they complain about being depressed and not getting out and doing anything. Discord and the internet isn't a substitution for IRL, and we're fixing to take people assuming it is to the extreme with this new tech. A reckoning is coming, I fear.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#397

Post by tomjen3 »

mihaic wrote: post #389
tomjen3 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that anybody who needs to indoctrinate people into their believes has believes that they cannot justify rationally.

Pretty much yes: my points was that there are plenty of ideas that a rational individual would be convinced of, but that are basically unarguable logically to large parts of the population. The flat-earthers are an extreme example, but not unique in any way.

They are also 0.01 percent of the population.

But you also seem to assume that different people would come to the same conclusion rationally, without taking into account different experinces, knowledge, ideas and priorities.

And of course, you assume the ideas that YOU came up with are what that rational person would come up with.

Which is the part that scares me. You have a perfect excuse that cannot be disproven: your ideas aren't bad, it is just that not enough people are rational enough to understand them.

Another group that had similar ideas? Lenin and the gang. The total death toll is far too great to risk going down that route again.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#398

Post by pfortuny »

jevgeni wrote: post #31
pfortuny wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Tell that to Einstein, who just before Hiroshima realized it was not such a good argument. That is a nice piece of history. Ethics is important. And one consequence is: I may die but at least it was not because I made it possible.

Yeah, theory of relativity and tech with use cases mostly in porn and fraud aren't really the same thing.

It’s not relativity. Einstein pushed first for the american atom bomb because “the germans will make it anyway”. Then he realised that it was way too harmful and recanted.

Nothing to do with relativity, just with “if I don’t do it others will”.

Re: Stop developing this technology

#399

Post by low_tech_love »

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…

My analogies are horrible…

Re: Stop developing this technology

#400

Post by bayindirh »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #395
bayindirh wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point here. Because I don't say anything in the line of that. What I say is, this is a double-use technology and dangerous beyond a certain point, so it might need to be regulated or banned at the end of the day. In an ideal world, we shouldn't need this, but we don't live that ideal world. For example, I can't independently develop an amateur rocket which can land to an area of my choosing…

Nuclear technology is low security indeed, and it's a technical problem, and uranium isn't exactly abundant element. Untrusted data is a problem of stupidity in comparison. But stupidity causes problems with any technology. It "spoons can harm people" tier problem.

It's possible to buy anything given the right price when it's not regulated or banned due to double-use technology restrictions. I'm sure while expensive I would be able to get required equipment for the right money, from the usual suspects (i.e. I'm sure there'll be microcontroller boards for controlling reactors up to 200KW or servo kits for 12 fuel, 12 regulator rod configurations from adafruit for example).

> Untrusted data is a problem of stupidity in comparison.

In the past, wrong data showed itself because of a lack of coherency. With the advanced misinformation operations, it almost have became an alternative reality game. A.I. today allows us to generate convincing lies at the push of a button. I can fathom what kind of misinformation bubbles can be built with technology like that.

These technologies are attacking to lowest level instincts of humans, which ones we deem utterly reliable for thousands of years. They are the same level with the manipulative algorithms in my mind. I put these into dangerous and harmful category.

This is not a case of stupidity. This is plain old, and very dangerous kind of, manipulation.

Downplaying this is not wise.

Post reply on HN