5 ms·

How do you feel about this probably being most used by bad actors trying to screw with society and elections?

pesenti 6y ago
That's definitely a fair concern. We believe that open science and transparency are the right approach here. By releasing it, we ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to abilities and defense.
- robmccoll 6y ago
  > By releasing it, we ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to abilities and defense. This seems like wishful thinking. Having knowledge and having the resources to do something with it are two very different things.
  - phreeza 6y ago
    Defending against such an "attack" is much easier if the technology is widely available and many people can play around with it and explore the limits.
    - ori_b 6y ago
      So is crafting such an attack. Given that the attacks are obvious, and I haven't seen much word on defenses, the result seems inevitable.
      - colordrops 6y ago
        At some point you have to let the rest of society in on it. As technology advances, if you keep the power away from the public, eventually you will split into two civilizations a vast divide creating an asymmetry that will be exploited by those on the elite side of the divide. It must be an aspect of technological rollout to figure out how to keep its usage safe once it is widespread.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      Performing the attack is only a possibility because the tech was made available.
      - ceres 6y ago
        You are assuming that such tech is not already being (or has been) developed covertly by malicious actors. Developing this and making it open source brings more awareness about the subject and will make it easier to develop defense models against such bots (whether already in existence or that will be developed in future).
        rumanator 6y ago
        > You are assuming that such tech is not already being (or has been) developed covertly by malicious actors. I fail to see where playing out the "but others are doing it too" card exempts the responsibility of those who either lower or eliminate the barrier to entry to these attacks.
- dkural 6y ago
  So what's the defense?
  - phs318u 6y ago
    If it comes from Facebook, assign it zero credibility?
  - serf 6y ago
    that's the rub. every AI sound/word/picture editor i've ran into says something along the lines of "we're releasing this data set to help stay secure in this day and age of easy counterfeiting of X.", but they never really mention how you apply the data in an adversarial way against itself -- they just sort of hand-wave that part. Same with fake AI generated Obama video and sound, and earlier data-set generated chatbots; it's plastered all over the projects things like "Since these methods are available we think that it's important that this data is disseminated so that other's can use it to validate real world data sources", but again -- how? We have the real data, we have the fake data -- how is this diff done, exactly? I'm willing to bet it isn't as easy as all the AI researchers who release this stuff claim it may be.
    - jdsully 6y ago
      If its secret or not publicly available people will argue using Occam’s razor or that only “State actors” could use this. With the subtext being your not important enough. With the data public its more akin to driveby ssh login attempts. Not being important doesn’t mean your not under attack and people can take the necessary precautions.
      - dralley 6y ago
        That's a bit like saying that nuclear secrets should be made public so that people can "take precautions" because "anyone can have a nuclear weapon, not just state actors". There are few reasonable ways to "take precautions" against nuclear weapons and there are few reasonable ways to "take precautions" against something like this short of swearing off of social media entirely. Without reasonable defences, all you really accomplish is ramping up proliferation.
- m1sta_ 6y ago
  Everyone =/= everyone unfortunately. I agree with your approach though.
- toper-centage 6y ago
  Sounds like the arguments made by pro gun people.
jerkstate 6y ago
On the other hand, what if this technology was used to influence society and elections in a good way?
- selestify 6y ago
  One of the problem is, who gets to define what “good” is?
- rumanator 6y ago
  Do you believe anyone is in a position to dictate the outcome of an election without the people having a say on the matter?
meritt 6y ago
It's already happening across social media, just with software a whole lot more advanced than this.

That's definitely a fair concern. We believe that open science and transparency are the right approach here. By releasing it, we ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to abilities and defense.

robmccoll 6y ago
> By releasing it, we ensure that everyone is on the same page with respect to abilities and defense. This seems like wishful thinking. Having knowledge and having the resources to do something with it are two very different things.
- phreeza 6y ago
  Defending against such an "attack" is much easier if the technology is widely available and many people can play around with it and explore the limits.
  - ori_b 6y ago
    So is crafting such an attack. Given that the attacks are obvious, and I haven't seen much word on defenses, the result seems inevitable.
    - colordrops 6y ago
      At some point you have to let the rest of society in on it. As technology advances, if you keep the power away from the public, eventually you will split into two civilizations a vast divide creating an asymmetry that will be exploited by those on the elite side of the divide. It must be an aspect of technological rollout to figure out how to keep its usage safe once it is widespread.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    Performing the attack is only a possibility because the tech was made available.
    - ceres 6y ago
      You are assuming that such tech is not already being (or has been) developed covertly by malicious actors. Developing this and making it open source brings more awareness about the subject and will make it easier to develop defense models against such bots (whether already in existence or that will be developed in future).
      - rumanator 6y ago
        > You are assuming that such tech is not already being (or has been) developed covertly by malicious actors. I fail to see where playing out the "but others are doing it too" card exempts the responsibility of those who either lower or eliminate the barrier to entry to these attacks.
dkural 6y ago
So what's the defense?
- phs318u 6y ago
  If it comes from Facebook, assign it zero credibility?
- serf 6y ago
  that's the rub. every AI sound/word/picture editor i've ran into says something along the lines of "we're releasing this data set to help stay secure in this day and age of easy counterfeiting of X.", but they never really mention how you apply the data in an adversarial way against itself -- they just sort of hand-wave that part. Same with fake AI generated Obama video and sound, and earlier data-set generated chatbots; it's plastered all over the projects things like "Since these methods are available we think that it's important that this data is disseminated so that other's can use it to validate real world data sources", but again -- how? We have the real data, we have the fake data -- how is this diff done, exactly? I'm willing to bet it isn't as easy as all the AI researchers who release this stuff claim it may be.
  - jdsully 6y ago
    If its secret or not publicly available people will argue using Occam’s razor or that only “State actors” could use this. With the subtext being your not important enough. With the data public its more akin to driveby ssh login attempts. Not being important doesn’t mean your not under attack and people can take the necessary precautions.
    - dralley 6y ago
      That's a bit like saying that nuclear secrets should be made public so that people can "take precautions" because "anyone can have a nuclear weapon, not just state actors". There are few reasonable ways to "take precautions" against nuclear weapons and there are few reasonable ways to "take precautions" against something like this short of swearing off of social media entirely. Without reasonable defences, all you really accomplish is ramping up proliferation.
m1sta_ 6y ago
Everyone =/= everyone unfortunately. I agree with your approach though.
toper-centage 6y ago
Sounds like the arguments made by pro gun people.

jerkstate 6y ago

On the other hand, what if this technology was used to influence society and elections in a good way?

selestify 6y ago
One of the problem is, who gets to define what “good” is?
rumanator 6y ago
Do you believe anyone is in a position to dictate the outcome of an election without the people having a say on the matter?

meritt 6y ago

It's already happening across social media, just with software a whole lot more advanced than this.