4 ms·

I really, really hope that there aren’t any people who think they way you’ve outlined. AI image generation is not a build-your-own-weaponized-virus kit. It’s

I really, really hope that there aren’t any people who think they way you’ve outlined. AI image generation is not a build-your-own-weaponized-virus kit. It’s a useful tool that can be used to produce creative expression. What people produce is up to them, and the fact that they might misuse their capacity for free speech isn’t an argument for curtailing it.

ethanbond 4y ago
OP doesn’t sound like it’s talking exclusively about image generation. Sounds like a general, “I should be able to build, propagate, and use whatever tech however I want no matter the negative externalities.”
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  I think even the phrase "negative externalities" is overstating it. There's a big difference between "I push this button and now the woods behind my house are destroyed" and "I push this button and I have what looks like a photograph of some important person naked." Photo generating AIs are not a big deal IMO. We might be talking about these things more generally but I doubt we are talking about McNukes here.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    The problem with extremely powerful forces (like new technologies) is that you can’t always predict what effects they’ll have. This is doubly true with regard to technologies that seem not only powerful, not only adaptable to new domains, but also rapidly improving on both of those dimensions. I don’t know what is the right level or type of limitation, but there is nothing confusing or weird at all about wanting to be careful with such a technology. If technology keeps advancing (it will), new developments will approach “looks kind of alarming” status faster and faster. This is because they will also approach “could destroy everything we know and love” status faster and faster.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      At it's core, the argument for caution can be articulated as "utility and availability of this technology must be limited to incumbent actors in the industry for our protection" and that's very fishy. It's particularly fishy considering this technology cannot even so much as break a fingernail or cut a blade of grass. Is it consequential? Obviously or neither one of our arguments would exist. Does it have the potential to hurt people? Only if those people let it. To me it's overblown moral panic that's suspiciously convenient for the big players in the industry and software in general.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
    The scenario that worries people is less "photograph of some important person naked" and more "photograph of you naked". State of the art image tech is more than capable of allowing people to create convincing porn of their enemies (or creepy crushes). I don't know if that genie can be put back into the bottle, but it's hard to complain that researchers aren't interested in providing the genie as a service.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      If someone wants to crank it to what amounts to a high tech doodle of me doing naughty things to myself I don't see how that's any of my business. There are people in the world how put real legit porn of themselves on the internet, I'm sure they'd find this fearmongering about fake pictures and videos of themselves on the internet laughable. It is the closest to inconsequential you can get, posting yellow pages information on twitter is far more damaging.
pixl97 4y ago
The problem I would say here is you're thinking in binary, but real life doesn't operate this way. Lets take a current potential problem. That is a low powered application capable of facial recognition. You can now strap that on to any number of dumb weapons and you've created a smart weapon. In itself it's not a problem, until it starts happening a lot. If you think like a house cat, you tend to think that society owes you its existence and you're the king of the hill. But say weapons proliferation occurs all those ideas of "I have rights" go right out the window, and this loss of rights will be supported by the masses that don't want to get droned in the head out on a date. The tyranny you want to avoid will be caused by the pursuit of absolute freedom. As technology becomes more complex the line will blur even further. AI as a build your own 'terrible thing' will happen. Physics demands it, everything is just information at the end of the day. Now it's up to you to avoid the worst possible outcomes between now and then.
- Sargos 4y ago
  Murder is already illegal. Laws preventing strapping facial recognition to a drone and killing people won't actually prevent it from happening because this is more like a Unibomber style event where the perpetrator won't care about the law and normal people won't be doing this anyway.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Heh, I like how you handwave American judicial precedent away like it doesn't even exist and the multitude of laws enacted where a small group of people committing acts gets laws affected against all. Do we want to go into all the online protection acts enacted recently? Even actors like the Unibomber had a huge impact on things like bomb detection in mail and airplanes. Now imagine the modern Unibomber, instead of attacking randoms went after senators. The moment the class protected by wealth and power comes under attack from AI technologies expect a raft of laws limiting and restricting them to be enacted.
    - colejohnson66 4y ago
      > The moment the class protected by wealth and power comes under attack from AI technologies expect a raft of laws limiting and restricting them to be enacted. That's exactly why your rental histories at places like Blockbuster are, by law, confidential; A politician had their rental history leaked. Once a deepfake of a politician gets enough movement, said politician is going to begin rallying support against AI.

ethanbond 4y ago

OP doesn’t sound like it’s talking exclusively about image generation. Sounds like a general, “I should be able to build, propagate, and use whatever tech however I want no matter the negative externalities.”

betwixthewires 4y ago
I think even the phrase "negative externalities" is overstating it. There's a big difference between "I push this button and now the woods behind my house are destroyed" and "I push this button and I have what looks like a photograph of some important person naked." Photo generating AIs are not a big deal IMO. We might be talking about these things more generally but I doubt we are talking about McNukes here.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  The problem with extremely powerful forces (like new technologies) is that you can’t always predict what effects they’ll have. This is doubly true with regard to technologies that seem not only powerful, not only adaptable to new domains, but also rapidly improving on both of those dimensions. I don’t know what is the right level or type of limitation, but there is nothing confusing or weird at all about wanting to be careful with such a technology. If technology keeps advancing (it will), new developments will approach “looks kind of alarming” status faster and faster. This is because they will also approach “could destroy everything we know and love” status faster and faster.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    At it's core, the argument for caution can be articulated as "utility and availability of this technology must be limited to incumbent actors in the industry for our protection" and that's very fishy. It's particularly fishy considering this technology cannot even so much as break a fingernail or cut a blade of grass. Is it consequential? Obviously or neither one of our arguments would exist. Does it have the potential to hurt people? Only if those people let it. To me it's overblown moral panic that's suspiciously convenient for the big players in the industry and software in general.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
  The scenario that worries people is less "photograph of some important person naked" and more "photograph of you naked". State of the art image tech is more than capable of allowing people to create convincing porn of their enemies (or creepy crushes). I don't know if that genie can be put back into the bottle, but it's hard to complain that researchers aren't interested in providing the genie as a service.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    If someone wants to crank it to what amounts to a high tech doodle of me doing naughty things to myself I don't see how that's any of my business. There are people in the world how put real legit porn of themselves on the internet, I'm sure they'd find this fearmongering about fake pictures and videos of themselves on the internet laughable. It is the closest to inconsequential you can get, posting yellow pages information on twitter is far more damaging.

pixl97 4y ago

The problem I would say here is you're thinking in binary, but real life doesn't operate this way. Lets take a current potential problem. That is a low powered application capable of facial recognition. You can now strap that on to any number of dumb weapons and you've created a smart weapon. In itself it's not a problem, until it starts happening a lot. If you think like a house cat, you tend to think that society owes you its existence and you're the king of the hill. But say weapons proliferation occurs all those ideas of "I have rights" go right out the window, and this loss of rights will be supported by the masses that don't want to get droned in the head out on a date. The tyranny you want to avoid will be caused by the pursuit of absolute freedom. As technology becomes more complex the line will blur even further. AI as a build your own 'terrible thing' will happen. Physics demands it, everything is just information at the end of the day. Now it's up to you to avoid the worst possible outcomes between now and then.

Sargos 4y ago
Murder is already illegal. Laws preventing strapping facial recognition to a drone and killing people won't actually prevent it from happening because this is more like a Unibomber style event where the perpetrator won't care about the law and normal people won't be doing this anyway.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Heh, I like how you handwave American judicial precedent away like it doesn't even exist and the multitude of laws enacted where a small group of people committing acts gets laws affected against all. Do we want to go into all the online protection acts enacted recently? Even actors like the Unibomber had a huge impact on things like bomb detection in mail and airplanes. Now imagine the modern Unibomber, instead of attacking randoms went after senators. The moment the class protected by wealth and power comes under attack from AI technologies expect a raft of laws limiting and restricting them to be enacted.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    > The moment the class protected by wealth and power comes under attack from AI technologies expect a raft of laws limiting and restricting them to be enacted. That's exactly why your rental histories at places like Blockbuster are, by law, confidential; A politician had their rental history leaked. Once a deepfake of a politician gets enough movement, said politician is going to begin rallying support against AI.