5 ms·

Well done AI researchers, keep digging. The balrog isn't far below you now.

valine 3y ago
Why is this the fault of AI researchers? Hollywood executives are trying to own everyone's likeness for free. That has nothing to do with AI; it's run of the mill greed. They tried to do the same thing to Crispin Glover back in the 80s. There are many ways to reproduce someone's likeness, and diffusion models are just the latest. Hanging a body double upside down accomplishes the same thing.
- uoaei 3y ago
  It's the fault of AI researchers in the same way that deaths in conflict zones are the fault of weapons manufacturers. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, since whether the weapons exist or not is the primary factor determining whether they can be used by malicious actors.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    > the primary factor determining whether they can be used by malicious actors By that logic we shouldn't have nuclear energy at all. It's a ridiculous premise.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      The premise that nuclear energy enables nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Nuclear energy does not require the level of refinement that nuclear weapons do. Creators of fuel for nuclear energy are not creating materials suitable for use in nuclear weapons.
  - valine 3y ago
    No. It’s not. The weapon is the contract being forced on everyone in the industry. AI is certainly a nice cover for a policy Hollywood executives have been salivating over for decades. You clearly fell for it.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Advanced weapons are certainly a nice cover for a policy 4-star generals have been salivating over for decades (namely, war). You clearly fell for it. If your argument is invalidated by the most transparent and effortless of satire, it's not a good argument.
      - valine 3y ago
        Your analogy makes zero sense. You can’t go to war without weapons, but there are a million ways to copy someone’s likeness that don’t involve AI. To name a few: Masks, makeup, 3D scans and head tracking, cartoons (live action character depicted in cartoon form). Owning the rights to your likeness has nothing to do with AI and never has.
        uoaei 3y ago
        That seems like a performatively narrow critique that conveniently avoids the broader conversation we're engaged in.
  - glimshe 3y ago
    AI can do good and bad, just like fire or nuclear fission. A world with AI is probably a better world, but it's a technology that comes with many caveats. Blaming the researchers for misuse is unfair.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      It's a yes-and situation of course. Pulling the trigger comes with its own blame, but let's not pretend that no one working on such technologies could see this kind of (mis)use coming.
      - scrumper 3y ago
        I think it's interesting that we don't have a well-known philosophical framework for discussing "could vs. should" problems in technology development. The argument comes up time and again; the response to my balrog comment was exactly what I was expecting - gun makers vs generals. I'm starting to think it's one of humanity's major blind spots. It's a branch of ethics, surely worthy of a bit of square footage in an ivory tower.
        uoaei 3y ago
        Humanity, broadly, discusses ethics quite a bit and I think the philosophers among us have set us up with the tools to have good conversations about it. But tech-adjacent people seem bored and dismissive by questions of ethics as a general rule. If you were in STEM in college, you may recall the groans and avoidance of the (likely mandatory) ethics courses among your cohort. Bioethics is the most prominent example of such a study because of the possibility of immediate and direct harm on organisms. I agree it would be worthwhile to formalize an ethics framework for tech in general, we don't seem to have a proper title for such a field of study so you're right that we are blind to it as a society.
      - glimshe 3y ago
        True, maybe some of these researchers were encouraged by the misuse for profits. At the same time, the breakthroughs didn't depend on a single genius insight by a couple of reseachers, a Manhattan-type project or a tablet from aliens. The results can be considered inevitable in the sense that reflects very capable people incrementally advancing the status quo as part of their research jobs. We need to build the necessary frameworks for dealing with this, and other advancements, because they will come irrespective of our wishes.

Why is this the fault of AI researchers? Hollywood executives are trying to own everyone's likeness for free. That has nothing to do with AI; it's run of the mill greed. They tried to do the same thing to Crispin Glover back in the 80s. There are many ways to reproduce someone's likeness, and diffusion models are just the latest. Hanging a body double upside down accomplishes the same thing.

uoaei 3y ago
It's the fault of AI researchers in the same way that deaths in conflict zones are the fault of weapons manufacturers. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger, since whether the weapons exist or not is the primary factor determining whether they can be used by malicious actors.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  > the primary factor determining whether they can be used by malicious actors By that logic we shouldn't have nuclear energy at all. It's a ridiculous premise.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    The premise that nuclear energy enables nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Nuclear energy does not require the level of refinement that nuclear weapons do. Creators of fuel for nuclear energy are not creating materials suitable for use in nuclear weapons.
- valine 3y ago
  No. It’s not. The weapon is the contract being forced on everyone in the industry. AI is certainly a nice cover for a policy Hollywood executives have been salivating over for decades. You clearly fell for it.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Advanced weapons are certainly a nice cover for a policy 4-star generals have been salivating over for decades (namely, war). You clearly fell for it. If your argument is invalidated by the most transparent and effortless of satire, it's not a good argument.
    - valine 3y ago
      Your analogy makes zero sense. You can’t go to war without weapons, but there are a million ways to copy someone’s likeness that don’t involve AI. To name a few: Masks, makeup, 3D scans and head tracking, cartoons (live action character depicted in cartoon form). Owning the rights to your likeness has nothing to do with AI and never has.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        That seems like a performatively narrow critique that conveniently avoids the broader conversation we're engaged in.
- glimshe 3y ago
  AI can do good and bad, just like fire or nuclear fission. A world with AI is probably a better world, but it's a technology that comes with many caveats. Blaming the researchers for misuse is unfair.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    It's a yes-and situation of course. Pulling the trigger comes with its own blame, but let's not pretend that no one working on such technologies could see this kind of (mis)use coming.
    - scrumper 3y ago
      I think it's interesting that we don't have a well-known philosophical framework for discussing "could vs. should" problems in technology development. The argument comes up time and again; the response to my balrog comment was exactly what I was expecting - gun makers vs generals. I'm starting to think it's one of humanity's major blind spots. It's a branch of ethics, surely worthy of a bit of square footage in an ivory tower.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        Humanity, broadly, discusses ethics quite a bit and I think the philosophers among us have set us up with the tools to have good conversations about it. But tech-adjacent people seem bored and dismissive by questions of ethics as a general rule. If you were in STEM in college, you may recall the groans and avoidance of the (likely mandatory) ethics courses among your cohort. Bioethics is the most prominent example of such a study because of the possibility of immediate and direct harm on organisms. I agree it would be worthwhile to formalize an ethics framework for tech in general, we don't seem to have a proper title for such a field of study so you're right that we are blind to it as a society.
    - glimshe 3y ago
      True, maybe some of these researchers were encouraged by the misuse for profits. At the same time, the breakthroughs didn't depend on a single genius insight by a couple of reseachers, a Manhattan-type project or a tablet from aliens. The results can be considered inevitable in the sense that reflects very capable people incrementally advancing the status quo as part of their research jobs. We need to build the necessary frameworks for dealing with this, and other advancements, because they will come irrespective of our wishes.