81–90 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many things can be unethical/immoral without being illegal, and of course there are some technologies that are fundamentally bad.
What technologies are fundamentally bad? I don't know of any outside of perhaps torture devices.
LOL
BTW.
It's not a "technology" in any classical sense of this word.
This is a funny and technologically useless rattle that can be used as a Chinese-made Kalashnikov assault rifle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, theory of relativity and tech with use cases mostly in porn and fraud aren't really the same thing.
Your response doesn't make any sense. Care to elaborate?
The second use of this technology is fraud. Go read the issue and the comments linked in the post.
And you should not even need this much info. The simple fact that they mention "mrdeepfake" as one of the 4 communication groups, the second after their Discord server tells you how much good this tech does to the world.
We actually blame them, except for airplanes. Most of these were invented at the times when lives had much less value and are of no use unless some half-minded pig attacks you or tries to undermine your defenses.
I’d like to see how this line of reasoning changes when someone releases a virus for your DNA in your backyard, made with funnyjokes/easy-create-virus-for-a-drone-app.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"must" is probably the wrong word, but if they don't develop it, someone else will. At most, it would be delayed, and I'm not sure there's much difference in that.
Can we agree that “someone would have done this anyway” is a poor justification for one’s actions? That’s what you say when you 1) recognize that you did a bad thing, but 2) don’t want to be blamed for it.
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.
While Einstein regretted working on nuclear weapons, the work they did there is equally responsible for the many lives saved by nuclear power, which he also appreciated. Also, it was the first 20% of the work towards nuclear fusion. Technology is not evil or good. Even this technology could be great. Jacky Chan, for example, is not going to make any more movies. But I want more of those movies. This very technology w…
Yea, tech is not evil or good, it's all about how people use it and so far, deep fake tech has only been used for evil. From deep fake porn to fraud. The only not evil thing about this are the memes, but we can live without deep fake memes just fine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the main page: “Communication groups [...] • mrdeepfakes - the biggest NSFW English deepfake community”, which strains my assumption of good faith debate regarding their ethics.
Nothing about producing or consuming deepfakes suggests bad faith. You might not like the art, but deepfakes are not harmful.
Maybe that’s an art form, but it’s also clearly potentially harmful in the same way as revenge porn, teenage nude selfies, and other cases where regular people and porn intersect.
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 secret, and our opportunities to develop countermeasures will be severely hampered by having fewer eyes on it, and a smaller entry funnel for potential white hats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
People have been able to draw naked pictures of people forever, and almost anyone with very little skill has been able to create extremely believable realistic fake naked photographs of people for over a decade now. I honestly don't understand the fear here: video is only more believable than a photograph because video is harder to forge... well, now it isn't, so video isn't believable either. But video could already…
> “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”