5 ms·
Can we agree that it's fundamentally not a bad thing to develop a technology? If you were a legislator, how would you like to criminalize the development of tec
by jolmg 4y ago
Can we agree that it's fundamentally not a bad thing to develop a technology? If you were a legislator, how would you like to criminalize the development of technology?
You know, the most difficult part of this tech is probably the facial tracking, which is probably also used for the animation of 3d avatars. The jump is probably not huge.
- MattRix 4y agoMany things can be unethical/immoral without being illegal, and of course there are some technologies that are fundamentally bad.
- jolmg 4y agoTech is such a malleable thing. Let's say that this repo doesn't exist, but repos exist for doing facial tracking on webcam feeds and pictures (for facial recognition), and others for modifying a 3d model according to a facial model output by facial trackers (for 3d avatars). Let's say that the tech around this DeepFaceLive repo develops to the point that the repo can become just a 10-line file of glue that makes a 3d model that's just a grid plane with a picture on it that moves according to a webcam feed. Such a repo is redundant and anyone that wants this tech can just apply the repos mentioned in the previous paragraph to do the equivalent. Are those repos now bad? If not, it seems the ethical question can be resolved by some restructuring of code so bad uses are not made so obvious, while being almost as easy.
- sneak 4y agoWhat technologies are fundamentally bad? I don't know of any outside of perhaps torture devices.
- lovemenot 4y agoThere's surely at least some that you don't know of because their developer made the decision to not release.
- blooalien 4y agoEvery single "weapon of mass destruction" is fundamentally bad technology, just for one ultra-easy answer…
- jolmg 4y agoThe possibility that nuclear deterrence has helped the world to be more peaceful in comparison to the past means that it's not such an easy answer. Hasn't even been a century since nuclear weapons were invented though, so no clear statistics.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sneak 4y agoThat's simply not accurate? Nuclear weapons and the advent of mutually assured destruction has ushered in a world where many, many, many fewer people die of violent conflict. Technologies that cause destruction are not congruent with destruction. They change the game such that destruction may actually be prevented by their existence. They are tools, nothing more. It's possible they have permanently eradicated world war. If that's true, they are not fundamentally bad but in fact really quite great. Only time will tell.
- tgv 4y agoNo, we can't. Developing "tech" is an action bound by morals like any other action. Cigarette production has tech in it. They don't just grow on trees. It was developed, and keeps being developed, by people well aware of the effects of smoking.
- jolmg 4y agoYou're opening another can of worms with that example. An adult, informed smoker that takes care to not cause second-hand smoking and that doesn't have any dependents, causes harm only to themselves. If they think that the reduction of stress or whatever else they gain at the tradeoff of their health is worth it, that's their choice. That's part of their bodily autonomy. As such, the tech is still not inherently bad.
- tgv 4y agoYou're conveniently dismissing a few concerns and from that drawing the conclusion it isn't inherently bad?
- JohnFen 4y ago> Can we agree that it's fundamentally not a bad thing to develop a technology? I do not agree with this assertion.