4 ms·

I'm going to take an unpopular position: there's no harm being done. It's not putting people in positions they would rather not be in, but putting their likenes

I'm going to take an unpopular position: there's no harm being done. It's not putting people in positions they would rather not be in, but putting their likeness into those situations. It's a key difference: if someone makes a paper mache of a naked Trump to use in a protest, is harm being done to him? The idea that it's "doing harm" is simply inventing a new form of lèse-majesté. Verbally, we regularly do the same: we might take a signifier for someone and place it in a representation. "Rick likes to fuck goats every day." Have I done harm to Rick?

rgmerk 4y ago
Be serious for a moment. If I circulated a convincing-looking video of Rick fucking goats to his parents, partner and his boss at the school where he works, that could easily do considerable harm to Rick.
- zarzavat 4y ago
  I don’t think that is a good example, because the harm in that case is the embarrassment and you can achieve the same results in 10 minutes with any image editing software. For AI image generation to cause harm specifically, the harm has to be consequent to the additional realism. IMO most of the harm from AI is likely to come from people not believing things that are real, and dismissing reality with “that’s just a deepfake”.
  - Morgawr 4y ago
    > the harm in that case is the embarrassment and you can achieve the same results in 10 minutes with any image editing software The harm is not the "embarrassment" of seeing someone in the likeness of yourself (or your son, your friend, your partner, etc) doing something shameful. The harm is the fact that people are very likely to believe it is true and it's not a fake obviously edited photo or video. You can disagree on the seriousness of the harm or risk or danger or whatever but I think the distinction between an obviously silly/embarrassing fake (a puppet, papier mache, badly done photoshop picture) and a realistic convincing deepfake video is pretty obvious. They aren't even in the same ballpark. > IMO most of the harm from AI is likely to come from people not believing things that are real, and dismissing reality with “that’s just a deepfake”. This is also a really good point and I agree it's a danger.
    - rgmerk 4y ago
      Further to this point, there is plenty of collected evidence of the harms this kind of image-based abuse, of both real (sometimes coerced or often surreptitiously taken) and faked images: See, for instance, this study of "sextortion" in minors: https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Sextortion-Findings-from-a-Survey-of-1631-Victims.pdf https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Sex...
- origin_path 4y ago
  How? Rick says I did not do this, it's an ai fake and I'm being harassed. At that point, assuming people believe Rick, then it's likely he'll receive sympathy and support rather than considerable harm. So there seems to be an implicit assumption here that the risk is faked material where people don't believe it's fake, for some reason. And the fix for that would be to ensure that the easy to use versions of generators are watermarking or otherwise recording what they made, so it's easy to find out if something was faked. That doesn't help of course if you're up against a programmer who can make awesome deepfakes locally with open source software and a great GPU but then we're back to the debate about costs because of course, if you to against well funded experts they could already do this sort of thing. In reality it doesn't happen.
  - melagonster 4y ago
    but when everyone see him, there is always the photo in their brain. this is about goat, but they fake pedo photo? Rick will lose his job first.
    - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
      Then Rick ought to release the video of his boss fucking that zebra!
      - melagonster 4y ago
        ok, in future, when someone reach 18 years old, government will generate video about that guy fuck everything, from stone to zebra, then publishing to internet. no one can hurt by deepfake anymore.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      That's true only for the first few hundred Ricks. Then people wide up and ignore the child rape videos. It's inevitable and frankly a hundred Ricks is a price worth paying.
      - 4y ago
- johannboehme 4y ago
  so, we just need better digital competence?
czzr 4y ago
If people believe you (not even everyone, but the right people at the right time) then you have done harm to Rick.
alphabetting 4y ago
Firstly, I think your position is pretty popular given thread. At your point, I think it's worth considering widespread acceptance of ridiculous ideas that currently exist (amount of people who believe articles from The Onion for example). There's no harm there but when the content is convincing video being used by nefarious actors I think you could make argument potential for harm is real, especially given the media content bubbles on both sides that people have segregated to in social media age.
CyberSimon 4y ago
Yes, you have committed SLANDER/LIBEL and Rick can sue you for damages.

rgmerk 4y ago

Be serious for a moment. If I circulated a convincing-looking video of Rick fucking goats to his parents, partner and his boss at the school where he works, that could easily do considerable harm to Rick.

zarzavat 4y ago
I don’t think that is a good example, because the harm in that case is the embarrassment and you can achieve the same results in 10 minutes with any image editing software. For AI image generation to cause harm specifically, the harm has to be consequent to the additional realism. IMO most of the harm from AI is likely to come from people not believing things that are real, and dismissing reality with “that’s just a deepfake”.
- Morgawr 4y ago
  > the harm in that case is the embarrassment and you can achieve the same results in 10 minutes with any image editing software The harm is not the "embarrassment" of seeing someone in the likeness of yourself (or your son, your friend, your partner, etc) doing something shameful. The harm is the fact that people are very likely to believe it is true and it's not a fake obviously edited photo or video. You can disagree on the seriousness of the harm or risk or danger or whatever but I think the distinction between an obviously silly/embarrassing fake (a puppet, papier mache, badly done photoshop picture) and a realistic convincing deepfake video is pretty obvious. They aren't even in the same ballpark. > IMO most of the harm from AI is likely to come from people not believing things that are real, and dismissing reality with “that’s just a deepfake”. This is also a really good point and I agree it's a danger.
  - rgmerk 4y ago
    Further to this point, there is plenty of collected evidence of the harms this kind of image-based abuse, of both real (sometimes coerced or often surreptitiously taken) and faked images: See, for instance, this study of "sextortion" in minors: https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Sextortion-Findings-from-a-Survey-of-1631-Victims.pdf https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Sex...
origin_path 4y ago
How? Rick says I did not do this, it's an ai fake and I'm being harassed. At that point, assuming people believe Rick, then it's likely he'll receive sympathy and support rather than considerable harm. So there seems to be an implicit assumption here that the risk is faked material where people don't believe it's fake, for some reason. And the fix for that would be to ensure that the easy to use versions of generators are watermarking or otherwise recording what they made, so it's easy to find out if something was faked. That doesn't help of course if you're up against a programmer who can make awesome deepfakes locally with open source software and a great GPU but then we're back to the debate about costs because of course, if you to against well funded experts they could already do this sort of thing. In reality it doesn't happen.
- melagonster 4y ago
  but when everyone see him, there is always the photo in their brain. this is about goat, but they fake pedo photo? Rick will lose his job first.
  - inkblotuniverse 4y ago
    Then Rick ought to release the video of his boss fucking that zebra!
    - melagonster 4y ago
      ok, in future, when someone reach 18 years old, government will generate video about that guy fuck everything, from stone to zebra, then publishing to internet. no one can hurt by deepfake anymore.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    That's true only for the first few hundred Ricks. Then people wide up and ignore the child rape videos. It's inevitable and frankly a hundred Ricks is a price worth paying.
    - 4y ago
johannboehme 4y ago
so, we just need better digital competence?

czzr 4y ago

If people believe you (not even everyone, but the right people at the right time) then you have done harm to Rick.

alphabetting 4y ago

Firstly, I think your position is pretty popular given thread. At your point, I think it's worth considering widespread acceptance of ridiculous ideas that currently exist (amount of people who believe articles from The Onion for example). There's no harm there but when the content is convincing video being used by nefarious actors I think you could make argument potential for harm is real, especially given the media content bubbles on both sides that people have segregated to in social media age.

CyberSimon 4y ago

Yes, you have committed SLANDER/LIBEL and Rick can sue you for damages.