3 ms·

> face to face for important communications Funny how computing perfected communication and ultimately will undermine itself. > I don't know what the way fo

> face to face for important communications Funny how computing perfected communication and ultimately will undermine itself. > I don't know what the way forward is for news. I'd say every packet of voice/img will have to be signed by the recording device and checked at rendering time. > I truly do not understand people like these founders Me neither. Don't do it. We don't need that, and the malevolent use of this will confuse people to an extreme point. Even the 'good' use of having a deceased relative utter new sentences is beyond strange. This is too far gone. And I'm no luddite.

mikrotikker 4y ago
This is democratising the tech. Otherwise only the intelligence agencies will have it and we will continue to be duped not knowing what is possible.
- twojacobtwo 4y ago
  We don't need to all be able to use the tech for it to be known publicly. Apply your same logic to any other easily misused tech: "We must all have easy access to bio-engineered viruses. Otherwise only..." "We all need to have access to nuclear weapons. Otherwise only..." Not all tech should be in everyone's hands.
  - mikrotikker 4y ago
    Its a different kind of tech. A society changing tech that can be used surreptitiously. It needs to be in people faces in (for example) the form of over the top and ridiculous memes. That is not possible with or comparable to, things such as bioweapons.
    - twojacobtwo 4y ago
      That is a fair point. It is different in that it could be used without necessarily creating destructive ends. Ultimately though, once the majority of people are aware of the capabilities of the technology, is any good being done by still allowing it to be easily accessible? It seems that the value in spreading its use reduces proportionally to the population of people who are still ignorant of it, while the danger of its misuse rises with number of actors/users until fully effective, equally accessible countermeasures are in place. If that's accurate, then it seems that the plan you're advocating for increases danger as quickly as possible and keeps it high while the world works on mitigations.
      - mikrotikker 4y ago
        The plan I'm advocating for immunise the public against the danger of misinformation through deepfakes, as well as cause a lot of resource to be thrown at the problem as the public would surely be very uncomfortable in such a situation

mikrotikker 4y ago

This is democratising the tech. Otherwise only the intelligence agencies will have it and we will continue to be duped not knowing what is possible.

twojacobtwo 4y ago
We don't need to all be able to use the tech for it to be known publicly. Apply your same logic to any other easily misused tech: "We must all have easy access to bio-engineered viruses. Otherwise only..." "We all need to have access to nuclear weapons. Otherwise only..." Not all tech should be in everyone's hands.
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  Its a different kind of tech. A society changing tech that can be used surreptitiously. It needs to be in people faces in (for example) the form of over the top and ridiculous memes. That is not possible with or comparable to, things such as bioweapons.
  - twojacobtwo 4y ago
    That is a fair point. It is different in that it could be used without necessarily creating destructive ends. Ultimately though, once the majority of people are aware of the capabilities of the technology, is any good being done by still allowing it to be easily accessible? It seems that the value in spreading its use reduces proportionally to the population of people who are still ignorant of it, while the danger of its misuse rises with number of actors/users until fully effective, equally accessible countermeasures are in place. If that's accurate, then it seems that the plan you're advocating for increases danger as quickly as possible and keeps it high while the world works on mitigations.
    - mikrotikker 4y ago
      The plan I'm advocating for immunise the public against the danger of misinformation through deepfakes, as well as cause a lot of resource to be thrown at the problem as the public would surely be very uncomfortable in such a situation