61–67 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably enforcement of existing laws.
Which laws do you mean and where do they apply? This article talks a bit about the lack of legal power to fight against deepfakes: https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-d...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which laws do you mean and where do they apply? This article talks a bit about the lack of legal power to fight against deepfakes: https://mcolaw.com/theres-not-much-we-can-legally-do-about-d...
Good information. Then the solution would be to improve harassment legislation rather than limiting the availability of tools. Just as assault is illegal but we don’t require all hammers to be made out of foam.
Google has fallen so far. Both Inception and Mobilenet were released openly and changed the entire AI world. Nowadays we just get blog posts about results that were supposedly achieved, an accompanying paper that can’t be reproduced (because of Google’s magical “private datasets”), and some screencaps of a cool application of the tech that is virtually guaranteed to never make it to product.
Probably because the actual product is garbage. Remember the Google assistant demo, where it booked a table at a restaurant? That never materialized. Google assistant is just eating crayons today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suggest we clearly specify the class of problem we're trying to solve and come up with a principled solution that would make sense when applied consistently and universally to all problems in that class. I prefer this over coming up with knee-jerk moral panic patches (e.g. "censor generative models so they can't generate this particular thing I find distasteful") or with overly abstract and tangential problem-solut…
I'm not in the US but I understand that there are already laws which limit your expression, such as in cases of CSAM or revenge pornography, which night be the closest analogue. Personally the limits are similar to that, as I'm personally most interested in fighting sexual harassment. The legislation against revenge pornography already faces and tackles issues of what constitutes pornography and when it becomes illeg…
The precedents you raise are worth considering. They're related but not completely analogous to deepfake porn of real people in my view. CSAM is criminalised due to the direct harm its production inflicts on minors and the deep injury to society that follows. Deepfake CSAM, I presume, has more of an 'obscenity' rationale as there is no actual direct harm inflicted on minors in that case. I suppose you could have a similar obscenity rationale for criminalising deepfake porn but you would then have to accept that pornography in general should be outlawed. An obscenity rationale would also be more supportive of criminal sanctions, as acts of obscenity injure society in addition to individual subjects.
I think revenge pornography is the best analogy here. I assume the policy rationale / theory of harm for criminalising 'revenge porn' (i.e. distributing true intimate private images of another person) is one of two things: (1) violation of the subject's privacy or (2) infliction of psychological harm on the subject. If the policy rationale is (1) then I don't I don't think there's a sound analogy to deepfake porn - deepfakes are fictional and so do not violate the privacy of the subject.
If the rationale is (2), psychological harm, then I could see a similar policy rationale for legislating against deepfake porn. But if psychological harm is your policy rationale then wouldn't it make more sense to directly criminalise the infliction of psychological harm on others regardless of the method used? If we were regulating on a principled and universal basis we should pass a law that criminalises any act, publication or utterance that inflicts psychological harm on another person, rather than using the law to solve single instances of this class of offences. Although I'd strongly disagree with such a law due to the chilling effect it would have on all forms of speech, expression and public commentary I think there's at least a principled argument to be had.
But if you legislate on this principle then you have to grapple with the far reaching implications of such a law - if someone writes some smutty (but fictional) erotic story about me that I find psychologically distressing should they then be thrown in jail? What if they say hurtful things to me that I find psychologically harmful? What if they insult a religion or political candidate, party or ideology that I strongly identify with? We all inflict psychological harm on others from time to time - what should minimum harm threshold be?
Personally, I don't think the criminal law is the answer in either the deepfake or revenge porn cases if the rationale is 'psychological harm'. Although I'm not sure where I stand on the following, I think a civil tort for infliction of psychological harm would be the sanest option if we feel the need to regulate against infliction of psychological harm. It would be analogous to defamation and libel torts, but instead of having to prove economic harm the plaintiff would have to prove some minimum threshold level of psychological harm to become entitled to compensation from the defendant in proportion to the actual provable injury sustained.
My thoughts aside, what is your general theory of harm / principled policy rationale here and, on that basis, what do you think the state's response should be to regulate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pixel marketing touts the NPU chip, which sounds ideal for accelerating a model like this. They might have reasons for leaving it out. Perhaps it's planned to ship with a new model - announcing a new phone in a model paper would be weird. I remember them advertising some Pixel-only photo editing features in the past.
It's great in theory until you have to pierce through several organizational boundaries to actually leverage it. Too sclerotic for it to happen regularly at scale.
Are like people at Google Research not embarrassed that none of this stuff ever makes it to real life? Google AI internally needs a huge culture change, stop acting like academics making things for academics and start working like developers making products for customers. I'd say in 10 years we'll be looking back and seeing the wasted potential but actually you can look back around 10 years and already see the wasted…
That's what research is. It's somebody else's job to determine whether or not it would be useful as a product.
Stop larping as an academic and actually start working as an employee, you know what they actually are.