3 ms·

> 1. What are the specific aspects of why this technology might have negative social implications? How might these be mitigated? Seems pretty obvious to me. Pe

> 1. What are the specific aspects of why this technology might have negative social implications? How might these be mitigated? Seems pretty obvious to me. People are notoriously hard-to-patch components of any IT/social system, and exploiting them with this kind of tech is possible, because they are hardwired to expect that video faking is scarce. > 2. Who or what (people, institutions, norms, guidelines, laws, incentives, etc.) can help increase the chances that such technology is (a) well understood; (b) designed conscientiously; and (c) deployed reasonably? The horses have bolted the barn. You literally cannot stop anyone with enough GPUs/AI accelerators from replicating a free-for-all version of any "conscientious" AI scheme, unless we ban general purpose computation. This tech is already here. There's no taking it back easily.

account42 4y ago
> Seems pretty obvious to me. People are notoriously hard-to-patch components of any IT/social system, and exploiting them with this kind of tech is possible, because they are hardwired to expect that video faking is scarce. People will learn to distrust video content once fake videos become commonplace so direct exploitation is only really a short term problem - at most for one generation of people growing up with friends making funny videos of things they didn't do. The longer-term problem is the loss of trust in video content used as evidence. OTOH as others have pointed out this might actually be a positive thing too considering the increasing amount of video surveillance that will too become less trustworthy and thereby also less of a problem. > unless we ban general purpose computation. Now that's a scary thought - it's unfortunatly already all too commonly accepted that people can't be trusted to decide what to run on their devices.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  > direct exploitation is only really a short term problem - at most for one generation of people growing up with friends making funny videos of things they didn't do For sure, but there's a window of opportunity in which an attacker can really do a lot of damage. Not much can be done about it, but it's worthy of keeping in mind. > Now that's a scary though - it's unfortunatly already all too commonly accepted that people can't be trusted to decide what to run on their devices. Yeah. Not that long ago banning general purpose computation seemed fanciful, but it's not as taboo today (and flipped to being the norm on device classes like the portables).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
xpe 4y ago
> This tech is already here. There's no taking it back easily. Right, I don't expect it to be easy, but it is important. My emphasis here is to ask and get some perspectives on "How do we do it?" rather than leave the conversation dangling with a vague sense of, e.g., "it is too hard..."

account42 4y ago

> Seems pretty obvious to me. People are notoriously hard-to-patch components of any IT/social system, and exploiting them with this kind of tech is possible, because they are hardwired to expect that video faking is scarce. People will learn to distrust video content once fake videos become commonplace so direct exploitation is only really a short term problem - at most for one generation of people growing up with friends making funny videos of things they didn't do. The longer-term problem is the loss of trust in video content used as evidence. OTOH as others have pointed out this might actually be a positive thing too considering the increasing amount of video surveillance that will too become less trustworthy and thereby also less of a problem. > unless we ban general purpose computation. Now that's a scary thought - it's unfortunatly already all too commonly accepted that people can't be trusted to decide what to run on their devices.

selfhoster11 4y ago
> direct exploitation is only really a short term problem - at most for one generation of people growing up with friends making funny videos of things they didn't do For sure, but there's a window of opportunity in which an attacker can really do a lot of damage. Not much can be done about it, but it's worthy of keeping in mind. > Now that's a scary though - it's unfortunatly already all too commonly accepted that people can't be trusted to decide what to run on their devices. Yeah. Not that long ago banning general purpose computation seemed fanciful, but it's not as taboo today (and flipped to being the norm on device classes like the portables).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

xpe 4y ago

> This tech is already here. There's no taking it back easily. Right, I don't expect it to be easy, but it is important. My emphasis here is to ask and get some perspectives on "How do we do it?" rather than leave the conversation dangling with a vague sense of, e.g., "it is too hard..."