5 ms·
I don't see a problem with them. Can't we focus on more important (I mean actual) problems?
by zb3 3y ago
I don't see a problem with them. Can't we focus on more important (I mean actual) problems?
- hennell 3y agoThere are actual problems, they're mentioned in the article. Just because it doesn't affect you, doesn't mean it's not a problem or important to others.
- majormajor 3y agoLet's say your boss, or spouse, received fake photorealistic pornographic images of you with your boss's spouse... Why are you expressing annoyance about people focusing on the "unimportant" problem of than dealing with the fallout of "AI fake porn generators" than about other people causing these problems in the first place by focusing on the problem of generating faked porn. There's no real importance to generating this stuff.
- jcadam 3y agoThat's it, I'm getting a UUID tattooed onto my backside.
- majormajor 3y agoWell, you gotta show you had it at the time of the claimed recording, so... time for Google to release a new product for high-res date-authenticated scans of our whole bodies? ;)
- jcadam 3y agoLOL. "We regret to inform you that our entire database of full body scans was accessed and downloaded by unauthorized persons. We're providing you with a free year of online reputation repair services. We apologize for any inconvenience."
- Enginerrrd 3y agoHonestly, I think such a scenario will only be relevant for a few more years. After which, photorealistic deepfakes will be so easy to produce reliably that they simply won't have the credibility. I don't know what happens to journalism and misinformation at that point, but it's not good. State level actors have been doing this already. India just recently got caught putting cheeky smiles on the faces of protestors after being brutalized by police to suggest they were faking their distress for their cause.
- anigbrowl 3y agoIf it were that simple why do phishing and other kinds of scams still work, and why are scammers and spammers so ubiquitous? People in tech are constantly defining problems away and then expressing horrified surprise when that very problem returns to bite them in the butt.
- flangola7 3y agoWhat about the people hurt during those "few more years?"
- hateful 3y agoI think the idea here is that he should treat that image or video the same as an email or text message describing it. It gets real interesting when you're doing a real-time deep fake. What even is reality anymore?
- majormajor 3y agoSo for parent poster's view that it's not a problem (even reading that charitably as "won't be a problem for long") we have to hope that: 1) everyone in the entire world learns about how easily things can be faked as quickly as possible and 2) everyone has perfectly rational Vulcan control over the emotions this stuff would provoke on first view? Social engineering is already not that hard, take a minute and imagine how something like this could be presented as a late step as part of a multi-step con to really fuck someone over.
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoYou can already send somebody's employer a text saying "hey, I know this is rough to hear but so-and-so is sleeping with your wife -A concerned 3rd party". Lying with video will rapidly become equivalent to lying through text.
- majormajor 3y agoYes, and that and other social engineering tactics have fucked people over plenty of times. So why are we pretending that making it easier to make more visceral and convincing versions of that won't have any bad effects? We already know that there are people who will try to advance their own interests like that, in what world does giving them more tools make their job harder somehow? "A sucker is born every minute" was said pre-computers, after all.
- pessimizer 3y ago> making it easier to make more visceral and convincing versions of that won't have any bad effects? This is not an argument that I see people making. They're saying that sending deepfakes to your job is just plain harassment, and that the photograph, which is only thought of as evidence because it is difficult to fake, will have lost its value as evidence. The invention of photography didn't make it easier to fake narratives, it made it harder.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago> Let's say your boss, or spouse, received fake photorealistic pornographic images of you with your boss's spouse... If they're naive enough to actually believe that image, you can just reply with one showing them in bed with your spouse. That should settle the matter.
- anigbrowl 3y agoWe live in a country where people quite literally get shot for parking in the wrong driveway. Real life isn't as simple as activating your trap card.
- pessimizer 3y agoHow did deepfakes manage to accomplish that?
- anigbrowl 3y agoNobody suggested they did. It's an example of non-reversible overreaction, as I'm sure you are aware.
- mitthrowaway2 3y agoSome of us even live in other countries, too!
- spywaregorilla 3y ago> Let's say your boss, or spouse, received fake photorealistic pornographic images of you with your boss's spouse... ... in a world where it is understood that fake realistic images are easy to be made then this is not any more credible than a text without pictures.
- krainboltgreene 3y agoAh, well as long as we're all very rational actors who also have zero dubious intentions.
- spywaregorilla 3y agoshrug. you can already lie
- krainboltgreene 3y agoYes, this just makes it easier.
- spywaregorilla 3y agoit makes it easier to lie in a particular form which is not particularly more convincing.
- pessimizer 3y ago> Let's say your boss, or spouse, received fake photorealistic pornographic images of you with your boss's spouse... Let's say your boss received an anonymous email accusing you of being a pedophile. What's the difference here in the world where a deepfake is no harder to make than an anonymous email? An anonymous email will probably be a hell of a lot harder to accomplish than a deepfake, actually.