3 ms·

> There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images Been possible

> There is a clear risk from these sorts of models as they get better - I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images Been possible on home computers for 31 years for anyone who actually wants to do it. It literally doesn't matter and I think Stability has proven that the "AI Ethics" part of these models was essentially meaningless busy work at best, and at worse stealing compute credits from users like Dall-E purposefully charging you with something you didn't ask for. Once every home computer can make the fake images AI Ethicists larp about then the power of fake images disappears because everyone knows not to trust them. It only has power if only a few can make them and never told the world it was even possible.

TuringTest 4y ago
Nobody should trust faked quotes attributed to celebrities or ethnic groups in Twitter or Whatsapp, yet these fakes have ruined political campaigns and led to mass killings. Society doesn't adapt in the way you suggest by people disregarding what you think is irrelevant.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Don't try to use open internet platforms for your political campaigns. I think "feedback" in that case is justified. People defended themselves against propaganda. The campaigns have ruined themselves. I am not sure about mass killings. Some say that Facebook enabled a genocide in Myanmar, but I think that is a false hypothesis. It was used as a platform by conflicting parties, sure, but it wasn't the reason for the conflict. Google has strong governmental ties right now, so opposing any of their messages regardless of content seems sensible. Without backlash it would just fortify the situation right now so it has to be costly for both Google and political parties. Google lost a lot of trust in recent years, sadly that is not true for their market influence. Perhaps they put out these message because government contracts require it, the user wouldn't know because that is not transparent.
- whywhywhywhy 4y ago
  > Society doesn't adapt in the way you suggest by people disregarding what you think is irrelevant. It's not what I think, it's what has been proven in the 32 years since photoshop was invented. What killings are you talking about that were caused by the existence of image manipulation?
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    You are looking at this with a Western perspective. Yet not everybody connecting to the internet has had access to computers for 30 years. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45449938 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45449938 > "A SIM card was about $200 [before the changes]," she says. "In 2013, they opened up access to other telecom companies and the SIM cards dropped to $2. Suddenly it became incredibly accessible." > "People were immediately buying internet accessible smart phones and they wouldn't leave the shop unless the Facebook app had been downloaded onto their phones," Mearns says. Thet Swei Win believes that because the bulk of the population had little prior internet experience, they were especially vulnerable to propaganda and misinformation. This means that large amounts of people are not internet-savvy enough to spot fakes and know not to trust them.

TuringTest 4y ago

Nobody should trust faked quotes attributed to celebrities or ethnic groups in Twitter or Whatsapp, yet these fakes have ruined political campaigns and led to mass killings. Society doesn't adapt in the way you suggest by people disregarding what you think is irrelevant.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
Don't try to use open internet platforms for your political campaigns. I think "feedback" in that case is justified. People defended themselves against propaganda. The campaigns have ruined themselves. I am not sure about mass killings. Some say that Facebook enabled a genocide in Myanmar, but I think that is a false hypothesis. It was used as a platform by conflicting parties, sure, but it wasn't the reason for the conflict. Google has strong governmental ties right now, so opposing any of their messages regardless of content seems sensible. Without backlash it would just fortify the situation right now so it has to be costly for both Google and political parties. Google lost a lot of trust in recent years, sadly that is not true for their market influence. Perhaps they put out these message because government contracts require it, the user wouldn't know because that is not transparent.
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
> Society doesn't adapt in the way you suggest by people disregarding what you think is irrelevant. It's not what I think, it's what has been proven in the 32 years since photoshop was invented. What killings are you talking about that were caused by the existence of image manipulation?
- TuringTest 4y ago
  You are looking at this with a Western perspective. Yet not everybody connecting to the internet has had access to computers for 30 years. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45449938 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-45449938 > "A SIM card was about $200 [before the changes]," she says. "In 2013, they opened up access to other telecom companies and the SIM cards dropped to $2. Suddenly it became incredibly accessible." > "People were immediately buying internet accessible smart phones and they wouldn't leave the shop unless the Facebook app had been downloaded onto their phones," Mearns says. Thet Swei Win believes that because the bulk of the population had little prior internet experience, they were especially vulnerable to propaganda and misinformation. This means that large amounts of people are not internet-savvy enough to spot fakes and know not to trust them.