5 ms·

Not sure I want to live in a world where billions of people still believe what they see when these deepfake technologies mature. Not sure I will care either, b

Not sure I want to live in a world where billions of people still believe what they see when these deepfake technologies mature. Not sure I will care either, because by that time I will have been locked in my living room for weeks playing my customized VR role playing game where Han Solo and I wreak havoc in the Far Cry 5 universe with my Dovakin powers while being chased by a all-female bounty hunter crew commanded by a 1982 Phoebe Cates.

nomel 4y ago
This is why I think it’s irresponsible to not give the public access to these early models. I think a slow, increasing, exposure to the absurd/false will work out much better than the isolation desired by the orgs who are trying to “protect” us, because that isolation will end up being temporary, resulting in a step rather than a ramp.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- _0ffh 4y ago
  Right, the earlier the general public is confronted with these technologies, the better!
- usednet 4y ago
  There needs to be far more criticism of the increasingly closed development of these models in what is essentially becoming an AI arms race. Like Sam Altman and his team at OpenAI (more like ClosedAI) who were more aware of this than anybody yet sold themselves out for the highest bidder. What a joke of a “non-profit.”
  - tnel77 4y ago
    I’m just jealous that I’m not able to sell out.
BoorishBears 4y ago
It's so bizarre to me how much commentary I see to this effect, do people forget the times we live in? You can fool more people with a fake article and $1000 in Twitter click farm spend than you could ever dream to with a deepfake. Like we've already seen entire elections undermined with basic internet trolling, the problem is already here, but somehow people are overlooking that and fixated on the most fanciful version of it?
- callalex 4y ago
  My thought process: if spreading disinformation without evidence is so successful right now, imagine how much worse things could be in the future when people are spreading disinformation with “evidence”.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I have a comment below about it, evidence is actually contrary to the goal. If you bring evidence you're introducing a place for a counter attack to apply leverage. If instead you make completely baseless claims on obvious false pretenses, you've actually made things more difficult to counter because only trivial counterproofs exist, which have to be dismissed to believe the false claim in the first place. - Take COVID vaccine deaths for example. Imagine I baselessly say that the medical field is lying and 50% of COVID deaths are actually vaccine complications. For someone to believe that, they must completely distrust any official numbers on COVID deaths... so once they've fallen for the lie, how do you convince them otherwise? The only counterproofs are the trivial to find sources of data that they already had to dismiss to believe me in the first place. Suddenly I've implanted a self-enforcing lie that entrenches its believers against anyone who isn't in their echo chamber. The root of all this is straightfoward enough: there is nothing stronger than requiring someone to disbelieve their own beliefs to counter your disinformation. If you add a deepfake, you've added something outside of their belief system to attack, so you're weakening the attempt. People simply do not like to be wrong about things they think they've figured out.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
authpor 4y ago
however the story of withholding technology, education, etc, for profit (of some kind) is much older than this particular latest development. if you ask me, this 'tradition' is the essence of imperialism (or just one amongs other techniques necessary to have an empire)

nomel 4y ago

This is why I think it’s irresponsible to not give the public access to these early models. I think a slow, increasing, exposure to the absurd/false will work out much better than the isolation desired by the orgs who are trying to “protect” us, because that isolation will end up being temporary, resulting in a step rather than a ramp.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
_0ffh 4y ago
Right, the earlier the general public is confronted with these technologies, the better!
usednet 4y ago
There needs to be far more criticism of the increasingly closed development of these models in what is essentially becoming an AI arms race. Like Sam Altman and his team at OpenAI (more like ClosedAI) who were more aware of this than anybody yet sold themselves out for the highest bidder. What a joke of a “non-profit.”
- tnel77 4y ago
  I’m just jealous that I’m not able to sell out.

BoorishBears 4y ago

It's so bizarre to me how much commentary I see to this effect, do people forget the times we live in? You can fool more people with a fake article and $1000 in Twitter click farm spend than you could ever dream to with a deepfake. Like we've already seen entire elections undermined with basic internet trolling, the problem is already here, but somehow people are overlooking that and fixated on the most fanciful version of it?

callalex 4y ago
My thought process: if spreading disinformation without evidence is so successful right now, imagine how much worse things could be in the future when people are spreading disinformation with “evidence”.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  I have a comment below about it, evidence is actually contrary to the goal. If you bring evidence you're introducing a place for a counter attack to apply leverage. If instead you make completely baseless claims on obvious false pretenses, you've actually made things more difficult to counter because only trivial counterproofs exist, which have to be dismissed to believe the false claim in the first place. - Take COVID vaccine deaths for example. Imagine I baselessly say that the medical field is lying and 50% of COVID deaths are actually vaccine complications. For someone to believe that, they must completely distrust any official numbers on COVID deaths... so once they've fallen for the lie, how do you convince them otherwise? The only counterproofs are the trivial to find sources of data that they already had to dismiss to believe me in the first place. Suddenly I've implanted a self-enforcing lie that entrenches its believers against anyone who isn't in their echo chamber. The root of all this is straightfoward enough: there is nothing stronger than requiring someone to disbelieve their own beliefs to counter your disinformation. If you add a deepfake, you've added something outside of their belief system to attack, so you're weakening the attempt. People simply do not like to be wrong about things they think they've figured out.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

authpor 4y ago

however the story of withholding technology, education, etc, for profit (of some kind) is much older than this particular latest development. if you ask me, this 'tradition' is the essence of imperialism (or just one amongs other techniques necessary to have an empire)