7 ms·

I understand the sentiment but I disagree. It's just another disruptive piece of technology that people will have to adjust to. If you can't trust a digital fac

I understand the sentiment but I disagree. It's just another disruptive piece of technology that people will have to adjust to. If you can't trust a digital face, then nobody will and using this tech for scamming purposes will simply fizzle out after an initial "adjustment period". I know that sounds rough but society might react differently than you think, i.e.: with digital faces being useless for identifying people, and maybe even becoming creepy or unsettling because of the implicated fakeness, meeting people in real life (opening bank accounts, transactions in general, anything where trust is valuable) will have more value. Don't fight progress in the hopes you can one day become complacent.

noAnswer 4y ago
It will fizzle out right after fraud involving the telephone or email died out.
bayindirh 4y ago
I don't see a difference between any technology. So if we can frown upon some nation for developing nukes, we can frown upon a group people for developing this. On the other hand somebody can say "if we don't, then others will". So regulate and ban the technology, then.
- GoblinSlayer 4y ago
  > So regulate and ban the technology, then. Except for criminals and CIA.
- grendelt 4y ago
  > So regulate and ban the technology, then. When has that ever worked? What banned technology is conceived of but not developed because some government entity said not to? I think the "if we don't, then others will" is part of the natural progression of technology. Whatever the next logical step of development is, that's where development efforts will flow. Some might not want to go there, but some will. Someone banning it will likely only fan the flames and drive more interest into the space - ala the "Streisand Effect". When the US government (et al) labeled certain numbers "illegal" because they could be used to break DRM or certain encryption types, academia and hackers alike openly mocked the notion. T-shirts, stickers, and websites sprung up further spreading this "illegal" knowledge. People who had no idea about how a number could be so "dangerous" suddenly wanted to know. By telling people they can't know or do something will absolutely drive people toward that knowledge. The hacker mentality often answers the question "why?" with "because I can". Saying you cannot only encourages more to jump in.
  - smallnix 4y ago
    That a law is broken by people does not mean we don't need it.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    I see banning things is useless in the long run, but at least some people will think about why it might be banned. I was thinking about throwing a wrench to the machine while saying "ban it" to make it stutter, like breaking the chain of obedience in Milgram Experiment, or like the woman who walks up to Zimbardo and stops The Prison Experiment (see his TED talk). Because, as a hacker and programmer, I believe that we have ethical obligations, and this "We're doing something amazing, we need no permission" stance in these communities genuinely worry me. Technology is not only technology, it affects people's lives. Anything which can damage it beyond a certain point by exploiting human nature is in the same category for me.
    - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
      Trying to protect low security by censorship is a repetition of history: https://www.zdnet.com/article/chilling-effect-lawsuits-threaten-security-research-need-it-most/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/chilling-effect-lawsuits-threa... It's like banning Iliad, because it describes troyan horse.
      - bayindirh 4y ago
        I think you're missing the point here. Because I don't say anything in the line of that. What I say is, this is a double-use technology and dangerous beyond a certain point, so it might need to be regulated or banned at the end of the day. In an ideal world, we shouldn't need this, but we don't live that ideal world. For example, I can't independently develop an amateur rocket which can land to an area of my choosing by the means of actively directing itself, beyond a certain accuracy and precision. Because it'll be a homing missile. On the same essence I can say that this technology can be used to damage other people. Or, I can't get some enriched uranium to build myself a small, teapot sized reactor to power my house during power outages. Can we say that we're censoring research in this areas too, because they're low security things? This is same with latest A.I. developments. However I'm a bit busy to open these cans today.
- suilied 4y ago
  I say frown away! We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best. But I like to think in solutions, so in stead of trying to arms-race this tech into submission with ever cleverer deep-fake detectors (and thus be able to regulate), why not accept its existence and change ourselves. Not least of all because any digital tech is like a permanent mutation to the digital-dna of our global society.
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    > why not accept its existence and change ourselves. That works too, like we accept the algorithms which tie people to screens and used to spread misinformation and manipulate the masses. > We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best. Yeah, like interview fraud, misinformation campaigns and what not. These are tasteless, but not harmless.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  "If we don't, then others will" is a bankrupt argument put forth by people who are trying to justify doing things they know are harmful. It would be more legitimate if it were "we won't, but others will".
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    This is what I was trying to point too, and why I added the "ban it, then" argument. Because there's a considerable amount of people who operate with the "if it's not illegal, then I can do this" mindset, and there's a big intersection of this two mindsets. At least putting a ban on it will make people think, I hope.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      Agreed. I'm not sure how I feel about "ban it" -- I can argue that either way -- but I do think that arguments that banning something is pointless because people will do it anyway are misguided. Regulations don't eliminate the effects of bad actors, but they do reduce the number and severity of them.
JohnFen 4y ago
> Don't fight progress in the hopes you can one day become complacent. I'm not convinced this represents "progress". That aside, the goal of resisting it isn't to allow you to become complacent some day. The goal is to avoid being harmed.
specialist 4y ago
Disruptive technology disrupts. Society and culture as well as markets. How many generations did it take for society to adapt to the industrial revolution? What were the spasms which occurred during that period? As for deepfakes, we know before we even begin that it breaks (utterly moots) social norms about identity, trust, reputation. How many people are going to die while societies adapt? Is that price acceptable for the benefit of more amusing viral videos on TikTok?

noAnswer 4y ago

It will fizzle out right after fraud involving the telephone or email died out.

bayindirh 4y ago

I don't see a difference between any technology. So if we can frown upon some nation for developing nukes, we can frown upon a group people for developing this. On the other hand somebody can say "if we don't, then others will". So regulate and ban the technology, then.

GoblinSlayer 4y ago
> So regulate and ban the technology, then. Except for criminals and CIA.
grendelt 4y ago
> So regulate and ban the technology, then. When has that ever worked? What banned technology is conceived of but not developed because some government entity said not to? I think the "if we don't, then others will" is part of the natural progression of technology. Whatever the next logical step of development is, that's where development efforts will flow. Some might not want to go there, but some will. Someone banning it will likely only fan the flames and drive more interest into the space - ala the "Streisand Effect". When the US government (et al) labeled certain numbers "illegal" because they could be used to break DRM or certain encryption types, academia and hackers alike openly mocked the notion. T-shirts, stickers, and websites sprung up further spreading this "illegal" knowledge. People who had no idea about how a number could be so "dangerous" suddenly wanted to know. By telling people they can't know or do something will absolutely drive people toward that knowledge. The hacker mentality often answers the question "why?" with "because I can". Saying you cannot only encourages more to jump in.
- smallnix 4y ago
  That a law is broken by people does not mean we don't need it.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  I see banning things is useless in the long run, but at least some people will think about why it might be banned. I was thinking about throwing a wrench to the machine while saying "ban it" to make it stutter, like breaking the chain of obedience in Milgram Experiment, or like the woman who walks up to Zimbardo and stops The Prison Experiment (see his TED talk). Because, as a hacker and programmer, I believe that we have ethical obligations, and this "We're doing something amazing, we need no permission" stance in these communities genuinely worry me. Technology is not only technology, it affects people's lives. Anything which can damage it beyond a certain point by exploiting human nature is in the same category for me.
  - GoblinSlayer 4y ago
    Trying to protect low security by censorship is a repetition of history: https://www.zdnet.com/article/chilling-effect-lawsuits-threaten-security-research-need-it-most/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/chilling-effect-lawsuits-threa... It's like banning Iliad, because it describes troyan horse.
    - bayindirh 4y ago
      I think you're missing the point here. Because I don't say anything in the line of that. What I say is, this is a double-use technology and dangerous beyond a certain point, so it might need to be regulated or banned at the end of the day. In an ideal world, we shouldn't need this, but we don't live that ideal world. For example, I can't independently develop an amateur rocket which can land to an area of my choosing by the means of actively directing itself, beyond a certain accuracy and precision. Because it'll be a homing missile. On the same essence I can say that this technology can be used to damage other people. Or, I can't get some enriched uranium to build myself a small, teapot sized reactor to power my house during power outages. Can we say that we're censoring research in this areas too, because they're low security things? This is same with latest A.I. developments. However I'm a bit busy to open these cans today.
suilied 4y ago
I say frown away! We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best. But I like to think in solutions, so in stead of trying to arms-race this tech into submission with ever cleverer deep-fake detectors (and thus be able to regulate), why not accept its existence and change ourselves. Not least of all because any digital tech is like a permanent mutation to the digital-dna of our global society.
- bayindirh 4y ago
  > why not accept its existence and change ourselves. That works too, like we accept the algorithms which tie people to screens and used to spread misinformation and manipulate the masses. > We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best. Yeah, like interview fraud, misinformation campaigns and what not. These are tasteless, but not harmless.
JohnFen 4y ago
"If we don't, then others will" is a bankrupt argument put forth by people who are trying to justify doing things they know are harmful. It would be more legitimate if it were "we won't, but others will".
- bayindirh 4y ago
  This is what I was trying to point too, and why I added the "ban it, then" argument. Because there's a considerable amount of people who operate with the "if it's not illegal, then I can do this" mindset, and there's a big intersection of this two mindsets. At least putting a ban on it will make people think, I hope.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Agreed. I'm not sure how I feel about "ban it" -- I can argue that either way -- but I do think that arguments that banning something is pointless because people will do it anyway are misguided. Regulations don't eliminate the effects of bad actors, but they do reduce the number and severity of them.

JohnFen 4y ago

> Don't fight progress in the hopes you can one day become complacent. I'm not convinced this represents "progress". That aside, the goal of resisting it isn't to allow you to become complacent some day. The goal is to avoid being harmed.

specialist 4y ago

Disruptive technology disrupts. Society and culture as well as markets. How many generations did it take for society to adapt to the industrial revolution? What were the spasms which occurred during that period? As for deepfakes, we know before we even begin that it breaks (utterly moots) social norms about identity, trust, reputation. How many people are going to die while societies adapt? Is that price acceptable for the benefit of more amusing viral videos on TikTok?