9 ms·

I can’t see a way this technology could be used defensively. Wide access just leads to more abuse. There’s no principle by which it serves some sort of justice

I can’t see a way this technology could be used defensively. Wide access just leads to more abuse. There’s no principle by which it serves some sort of justice to make some crime more accessible. It’s surprising how often this argument is made compared to, say, equal-opportunity access to fancy cars or good housing.

bjt2n3904 4y ago
They literally have a demonstration of the tool being used to evade an intrusive "send us a video of your face, turn your head both ways, blink". That isn't a defensive use!?
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Definitely useful for scammers.
  - bjt2n3904 4y ago
    Then build a cultural revolution that instills distrust in what you see. We already teach the elderly not to trust a link that says, "you are the millionth visitor, click to win your prize". Teach them also to look past the video call and what looks (and sounds) like their grandson to what is actually being said. He's asking for your bank password, that behavior doesn't match! The cat is already out of the bag. Going "nooo, unpublish this" doesn't protect people from scammers, who will continue to use it. Society must unlearn that seeing is believing. That is what is morally irresponsible, not this software.
    - Planktonne 4y ago
      I don't think anyone so far has called for this to be unpublished, just for it to be more carefully considered and for the ethical aspect to be addressed when publishing. That's part of 'building a culture of distrust'. Knee-jerk refusal to even consider thinking/talking about the use of technology is far more irresponsible than any other stance.
      - pixl97 4y ago
        Ignoring human nature is far worse. There are people that will release this simply because you tell them no. Even beyond that, if you're an authoritarian nation with a rather good lockdown on your news and internet, what's the downside of throwing tools like this at democracies? In my view the age of tools like this has already been here for some time and they are going to their next step of evolution, and there is very little we can do about preventing the distribution of them without affecting other pieces of software and their distribution.
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      But you are making the argument that releasing it is protective, and there is no basis for that argument. > Society must unlearn that seeing is believing. A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7.
      - trasz 4y ago
        >A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7. It's no different from religion, which was the backbone of the western civilisation for quite some time.
        mensetmanusman 4y ago
        Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)
        munk-a 4y ago
        Religion is a very complicated and touchy subject - it means drastically different things to different people.
        trasz 4y ago
        Religion claims that certain things are true when they contradict observable reality. There's no fundamental difference between claimed gods and deepfaked ones.
        burrows 4y ago
        The deepfaked ones actually speak.
        mensetmanusman 4y ago
        Many of the claims of religion can’t be contradicted by observed reality because they are pointing to things beyond the observable (ie non-Falsifiable, like the proposed existence of a multiverse). For example, religion claims you have free well. For a materialist, any interesting definition of free will is impossible, because we are made of quantum particles with defined statistical behavior. Of course, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of free will in other people either…
krankow 4y ago
More usage = More awareness = More people stop trusting random videos on the internet as evidence of anything. Seems like a good thing.
phkahler 4y ago
>> I can’t see a way this technology could be used defensively. Wide access just leads to more abuse. There’s no principle by which it serves some sort of justice to make some crime more accessible. Should that argument be made to the original research? I don't think it applies to one but not the other.

bjt2n3904 4y ago

They literally have a demonstration of the tool being used to evade an intrusive "send us a video of your face, turn your head both ways, blink". That isn't a defensive use!?

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Definitely useful for scammers.
- bjt2n3904 4y ago
  Then build a cultural revolution that instills distrust in what you see. We already teach the elderly not to trust a link that says, "you are the millionth visitor, click to win your prize". Teach them also to look past the video call and what looks (and sounds) like their grandson to what is actually being said. He's asking for your bank password, that behavior doesn't match! The cat is already out of the bag. Going "nooo, unpublish this" doesn't protect people from scammers, who will continue to use it. Society must unlearn that seeing is believing. That is what is morally irresponsible, not this software.
  - Planktonne 4y ago
    I don't think anyone so far has called for this to be unpublished, just for it to be more carefully considered and for the ethical aspect to be addressed when publishing. That's part of 'building a culture of distrust'. Knee-jerk refusal to even consider thinking/talking about the use of technology is far more irresponsible than any other stance.
    - pixl97 4y ago
      Ignoring human nature is far worse. There are people that will release this simply because you tell them no. Even beyond that, if you're an authoritarian nation with a rather good lockdown on your news and internet, what's the downside of throwing tools like this at democracies? In my view the age of tools like this has already been here for some time and they are going to their next step of evolution, and there is very little we can do about preventing the distribution of them without affecting other pieces of software and their distribution.
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    But you are making the argument that releasing it is protective, and there is no basis for that argument. > Society must unlearn that seeing is believing. A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7.
    - trasz 4y ago
      >A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7. It's no different from religion, which was the backbone of the western civilisation for quite some time.
      - mensetmanusman 4y ago
        Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)
        munk-a 4y ago
        Religion is a very complicated and touchy subject - it means drastically different things to different people.
        trasz 4y ago
        Religion claims that certain things are true when they contradict observable reality. There's no fundamental difference between claimed gods and deepfaked ones.
        burrows 4y ago
        The deepfaked ones actually speak.
        mensetmanusman 4y ago
        Many of the claims of religion can’t be contradicted by observed reality because they are pointing to things beyond the observable (ie non-Falsifiable, like the proposed existence of a multiverse). For example, religion claims you have free well. For a materialist, any interesting definition of free will is impossible, because we are made of quantum particles with defined statistical behavior. Of course, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of free will in other people either…

krankow 4y ago

More usage = More awareness = More people stop trusting random videos on the internet as evidence of anything. Seems like a good thing.

phkahler 4y ago

>> I can’t see a way this technology could be used defensively. Wide access just leads to more abuse. There’s no principle by which it serves some sort of justice to make some crime more accessible. Should that argument be made to the original research? I don't think it applies to one but not the other.