4 ms·
>Just look at ML's own history. A few years ago we had the "deepfake" scare. People were terrified that now videos are going to surface of politicians saying an
by barking_biscuit 4y ago
>Just look at ML's own history. A few years ago we had the "deepfake" scare. People were terrified that now videos are going to surface of politicians saying and doing things that they did not and we would have no way to tell if it was AI generated or not. But we had already been dealing with this for decades with doctored images a la Photoshop. Videos could already be edited by human beings to make it look like someone was communicating a message that they were not
The difference is bandwidth. We're making it about 1000x easier and cheaper to do.
- tome 4y agoSure, but how can anyone know that rate of progress will continue?
- barking_biscuit 4y agoIn some sense that doesn't even really matter. We're already at an inflexion point now where the effort to reward ratio of certain activities that used to be possible, but difficult has tipped into possible and not difficult. Once you reach that point, further progress is kind of irrelevant. The confetti has left the cannon. We're not going to go back to a world where it was as difficult as it used to be, so even if no further progress were to be made, we are still going to learn in due course what the implications of the current level of progress are. Sam Harris has a straightforward, yet somewhat compelling argument re: your actual question here, and that is "if it's at all possible for us to improve our technology, then we are going to" and iirc he notes that it doesn't necessarily matter how fast that happens, just the fact that it's possible means we're likely to do it.