3 ms·
> I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). We’re not at that point yet Yes, we are. Open source stable
by bufferoverflow 4y ago
> I mean recreating specific individuals’ likenesses in compromising images (or even worse, video). We’re not at that point yet
Yes, we are. Open source stable diffusion can be trained on any person's images, as long as you have around 20 from different angles. Costs around 50 cents on rented GPUs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqeo3oDP6Qg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqeo3oDP6Qg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m__xadX0z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m__xadX0z0
- hda2 4y agoAnd people will get accustomed to (i.e. not take seriously) these new AI-generated images like they have with photoshopped images. "Ethicists" act like society will somehow not adapt to this tech like they have with all the tech that came before it. I put ethicists in quotes because the arguments they use don't hold up to scrutiny and don't seem to be motivated by real ethical concerns. At least not to me.
- mekkkkkk 4y agoI think your are right about society adapting to this tech, and I don't think these AI technologies can or should be contained. But. The Photoshop argument is a bit tiresome. AI will bring about a fundamental shift in content creation and it will disrupt how we treat media as a whole. Photoshop and other manual technologies are naturally gatekept by the required skill, effort and source images. Once AI media generation matures, all that goes out the window. Anyone will be able to convincingly fake anything with almost no effort and zero traceability. That shouldn't be downplayed. The concerns are real.