10 ms·

If you believe AI has tremendous potential to do good - you should sit upright and pay attention when it does harm. Because it's up to people like you to demon

If you believe AI has tremendous potential to do good - you should sit upright and pay attention when it does harm. Because it's up to people like you to demonstrate to society that it does more good than it does harm. And if your response is to roll your eyes and say that everything is fine because people could do this in Photoshop - you are making yourself irrelevant. You are telegraphing that your support of AI is untethered to the harms normal everyday people care about. People aren't dumb and they're going to notice that you aren't in their corner. And then they're going to start deciding what to do about AI without you. I am reminded of one of my favorite HN comments, made in response to Amazon automatically recommending "suicide kits" to people. > As a developer, as a data scientist, as a designer, as a business leader, you are responsible for things like this. Do not make excuses. Do not disclaim liability. Acknowledge the mistake and fix it. We can do better. > -- 'kitanata https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33142941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33142941

skybrian 3y ago
This is not how blame works. You have no idea who is reading your message.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I have no interest in blaming anyone. I'm talking about an attitude I see in this thread, which I believe is shortsighted.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    Your post is warning about how other people will be held in judgement: > People aren't dumb and they're going to notice that you aren't in their corner. And then they're going to start deciding what to do about AI without you. I find it rather dubious. Who are these people who will remember what some random Hacker News commenters said? Why would they be listening to them in the first place? It seems like an empty threat.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      It's not a threat, that's a pretty uncharitable reading. Society will realize that everything is not fine, and that the group of people who insist that it is are to be ignored. I don't imagine that will involve singling out individual HN users. If this is a subject you want to discuss then I'm here to discuss it. If you want to dissect my language further, you're free to do so. But I'm not interested in arguing about semantics or tone and this is my final word on it.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Blame and personal responsibility are not necessarily connected. Blame is imposed from outside, personal responsibility is uniquely yours: you either accept responsibility for your actions or you do not and if you do then chances are that that will modify your behavior.
  - skybrian 3y ago
    It seems like writing about how someone else should take responsibility is blaming by this definition, since it comes from the outside? Or maybe a vague exhortation to do better doesn't count.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
dryanau 3y ago
What on earth are you on about. I just built some classifiers to run in industrial settings, why is it my job to do or say anything about Taylor Swift deepfakes. > Because it's up to people like you to demonstrate to society that Condescending as shit.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I'm sorry that I made you feel patronized. If you just wanna make your classifiers and tend to your own knitting, then I have no problem with that. There are a lot of people in this community who vociferously advocate for AI, to the point that I view them as political activists for AI, and it's food for thought for them. But that's a mantle they've chosen to take on, it isn't mandatory.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It's interesting how 'any use of the tool' gets mixed up with 'responsible use of the tool' and that people who engage in responsible uses of the tool somehow feel addressed when it is very clear that you didn't have them in mind when you wrote that.
- dang 3y ago
  Yikes, please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is. We have to ban accounts that post this aggressively, and I don't want to ban you. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: Fortunately your other comments seem fine so this shouldn't be too hard to fix.
squigz 3y ago
I fully agree with this sentiment - but what is the solution? I think most people do agree that such uses of this technology are horrible, but what can we really do about it? We can't put the cat back in the bag, and while efforts to censor the more popular services are commendable (if it's even possible to do so), that's not really going to stop bad actors from doing it
- maxbond 3y ago
  I don't pretend to have the answers, my point is more that if you want to be a part of the discussion of what a solution is, you need to have more than a shallow dismissal. We're still looking at the tip of the iceberg. Deepfake-enabled harassment, fraud and propaganda haven't seen extensive use yet. When and if they do, "you could do this with Photoshop" is going to sound increasingly out of touch. This is a social problem enabled by technology, so the solution is necessarily a social one with technology to support it. I don't know if this fits existing legal frameworks or if we'll have to put new laws on the books, but we should treat this as harassment. We should make it clear to younger generations that this isn't okay and why. On the flip side, I imagine people will get more defensive about their biometric data. We'll probably start to regard photos and voice recordings as being very private. It probably won't be as socially acceptable to post them. It will probably be more normalized to use an avatar and synthesized voice on things like Zoom calls. But this is all very speculative, so I won't be too surprised if things go very differently than I anticipate.
  - 15457345234 3y ago
    > It will probably be more normalized to use an avatar and synthesized voice on things like Zoom calls. Which creates a subsequent issue of it being completely impossible to authenticate the person you're talking to. Which will inevitably lead to companies being completely cored out by exploiters who, on a long term, infiltrate networks and give instructions to subordinates 'as the boss' which lead to companies failing.
    - maxbond 3y ago
      I don't really follow that chain of reasoning.
roenxi 3y ago
The harm here isn't AI, or if it is the harm is minimal. Media companies have routinely organised vicious smear campaigns since forever. If you spend time really watching politics, there are some grave injustices peddled by insensitive mobs. I expect we can date that sort of activity back to Roman times. AI is going to make life pretty miserable for good looking women in the public eye. Maybe. I think we can probably social-out the interest as this becomes widespread, it isn't like this actually reflects badly on Taylor Swift. But that has always been a serious hazard of public life. We've had this sort of thing happen before [0]; IMO this could be argued as harm reduction. I'm not sure the argument would be carried, but there is a case to be made. The important thing is to acknowledge this is easy to do and everyone agrees that nudes should be ignored. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak
- deafpolygon 3y ago
  I think the real harm here is that someone like Taylor Swift can have her searches scrubbed. What about Jane next door? She has no such recourse.
  - oceanplexian 3y ago
    It’s actually the opposite. X is making these changes on their own. An individual out of the spotlight could probably sue. In the law public figures are not protected the way individuals are. When sell out and willingly make millions of dollars exploiting your likeness, you don’t get to choose if people make a parody of that likeness.
    - deafpolygon 3y ago
      Yes, X is doing it because Taylor Swift is an important figure for their platform. Jane could sue, but X would claim no responsibility and there would be no loss to X if she left the platform.
- maxbond 3y ago
  > The harm here isn't AI, or if it is the harm is minimal. > AI is going to make life pretty miserable for good looking women in the public eye. Could you help me understand how you reconcile these two statements? Is the harm minimal, or will women in the public eye be miserable? Or is making women in the public eye miserable not something to take seriously - and if so, why? I'd also be curious if you think the harm will stop there - could you foresee maybe, high schoolers using deepfake porn to bully each other, con artists using cloned voices to commit fraud, deepfake evidence being used to frame someone for a crime, etc? Is there a reason I shouldn't be concerned about these prospects?
Gunax 3y ago
Well I am going to bluntly disagree, sorry. I am dismissive. But in the end, I will be right and you will be wrong. That's the pattern in technology. 1. Some technology is invented 2. It changes the status quo, directly or indirectly, on society. 3. There is some degree of backlash, regulations, and outrage. 4. Everyone accepts the new reality and forgets what it was even like before. Step 3 is often forgotten and considered quaint. The reality is this is an unsolveable situation. Porn deep-fakes are here. There is nothing that will change that. 20 years from now, celebrities will just accept that they are going to exist. I'm not even arguing that the technology is good (im not sure it is) or that I support it. I am arguing that it's inevitable. You think I am going to be irrelevant, but I think it's the opposite. In the last century we have invented number technologies responsible for megadeaths (cars, air pollution, carpet bombing). If those couldn't be stopped after killing thousands every year, then neither will this.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Your step four is incomplete. In addition to accepting a new normal, we put limits on technology and address the harms. We didn't roll over and accept, say, the destruction of the ozone layer. We put restrictions on the use of CFCs, and we invented new refrigerants that were much less harmful. Though there has been some recent backsliding due to rogue emitters, these measures were effective at stopping and eventually reversing the degradation of the ozone layer. Some more examples include unleaded gasoline, breaks without asbestos, paint and cosmetics that don't include heavy metals, light bulbs that are much more efficient, etc. We've also figured out how to make fuels that don't contain all much sulfur, thus avoiding issues with acid rain. This is an attitude I see on HN a lot. Technological innovation is seen as unstoppable and all powerful - until it's time to innovate new ways to address the problems we've created, and then there's apparently no possibility of coming up with innovative solutions. We're to accept ourselves as passive actors, caught up in the currents of history, with no agency to alter course. An example that I find haunting is OceanGate and Stockton Rush. Rush was all for being innovative when it came to novel submersible construction. But when his engineers wanted to inspect the hull for degradation - can't be done, the hull is too thick to scan. You might expect someone who views themselves as a fearless innovator to see that as an opportunity to develop a new methodology or technology. But Rush was only a fearless innovator when it pleased him, and so he took himself and his customers to their deaths. Frankly I think this attitude is a bad excuse, and not one that society will tolerate forever. This is the path to crippling regulations and trust busting. We can't just foist our externalities on the rest of society forever and not expect them to eventually decide we're incapable of self regulating.
RecycledEle 3y ago
Ohhh nooo...A celebrity got mocked online...how horrible!!1I! /s I assume the deep fakes were mild compared to what goes on in some of her fans' minds.
- maxbond 3y ago
  I wouldn't say she was mocked, I would call this harassment. You don't stop having rights when you become a celebrity. I also don't believe it's safe to assume this sort of thing will only happen to celebrities going forward. I think you know the difference between imagining something and publishing something, and that you're being facetious.
- Zetobal 3y ago
  Send me a face portrait and the address of your employer and some of your friend group and I wlii mock you as well. Just so you personally experience it and see what a load of shit your comment is.

skybrian 3y ago

This is not how blame works. You have no idea who is reading your message.

maxbond 3y ago
I have no interest in blaming anyone. I'm talking about an attitude I see in this thread, which I believe is shortsighted.
- skybrian 3y ago
  Your post is warning about how other people will be held in judgement: > People aren't dumb and they're going to notice that you aren't in their corner. And then they're going to start deciding what to do about AI without you. I find it rather dubious. Who are these people who will remember what some random Hacker News commenters said? Why would they be listening to them in the first place? It seems like an empty threat.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    It's not a threat, that's a pretty uncharitable reading. Society will realize that everything is not fine, and that the group of people who insist that it is are to be ignored. I don't imagine that will involve singling out individual HN users. If this is a subject you want to discuss then I'm here to discuss it. If you want to dissect my language further, you're free to do so. But I'm not interested in arguing about semantics or tone and this is my final word on it.
jacquesm 3y ago
Blame and personal responsibility are not necessarily connected. Blame is imposed from outside, personal responsibility is uniquely yours: you either accept responsibility for your actions or you do not and if you do then chances are that that will modify your behavior.
- skybrian 3y ago
  It seems like writing about how someone else should take responsibility is blaming by this definition, since it comes from the outside? Or maybe a vague exhortation to do better doesn't count.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

dryanau 3y ago

What on earth are you on about. I just built some classifiers to run in industrial settings, why is it my job to do or say anything about Taylor Swift deepfakes. > Because it's up to people like you to demonstrate to society that Condescending as shit.

maxbond 3y ago
I'm sorry that I made you feel patronized. If you just wanna make your classifiers and tend to your own knitting, then I have no problem with that. There are a lot of people in this community who vociferously advocate for AI, to the point that I view them as political activists for AI, and it's food for thought for them. But that's a mantle they've chosen to take on, it isn't mandatory.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It's interesting how 'any use of the tool' gets mixed up with 'responsible use of the tool' and that people who engage in responsible uses of the tool somehow feel addressed when it is very clear that you didn't have them in mind when you wrote that.
dang 3y ago
Yikes, please don't break the site guidelines like this, regardless of how bad another comment is or you feel it is. We have to ban accounts that post this aggressively, and I don't want to ban you. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Edit: Fortunately your other comments seem fine so this shouldn't be too hard to fix.

squigz 3y ago

I fully agree with this sentiment - but what is the solution? I think most people do agree that such uses of this technology are horrible, but what can we really do about it? We can't put the cat back in the bag, and while efforts to censor the more popular services are commendable (if it's even possible to do so), that's not really going to stop bad actors from doing it

maxbond 3y ago
I don't pretend to have the answers, my point is more that if you want to be a part of the discussion of what a solution is, you need to have more than a shallow dismissal. We're still looking at the tip of the iceberg. Deepfake-enabled harassment, fraud and propaganda haven't seen extensive use yet. When and if they do, "you could do this with Photoshop" is going to sound increasingly out of touch. This is a social problem enabled by technology, so the solution is necessarily a social one with technology to support it. I don't know if this fits existing legal frameworks or if we'll have to put new laws on the books, but we should treat this as harassment. We should make it clear to younger generations that this isn't okay and why. On the flip side, I imagine people will get more defensive about their biometric data. We'll probably start to regard photos and voice recordings as being very private. It probably won't be as socially acceptable to post them. It will probably be more normalized to use an avatar and synthesized voice on things like Zoom calls. But this is all very speculative, so I won't be too surprised if things go very differently than I anticipate.
- 15457345234 3y ago
  > It will probably be more normalized to use an avatar and synthesized voice on things like Zoom calls. Which creates a subsequent issue of it being completely impossible to authenticate the person you're talking to. Which will inevitably lead to companies being completely cored out by exploiters who, on a long term, infiltrate networks and give instructions to subordinates 'as the boss' which lead to companies failing.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I don't really follow that chain of reasoning.

roenxi 3y ago

The harm here isn't AI, or if it is the harm is minimal. Media companies have routinely organised vicious smear campaigns since forever. If you spend time really watching politics, there are some grave injustices peddled by insensitive mobs. I expect we can date that sort of activity back to Roman times. AI is going to make life pretty miserable for good looking women in the public eye. Maybe. I think we can probably social-out the interest as this becomes widespread, it isn't like this actually reflects badly on Taylor Swift. But that has always been a serious hazard of public life. We've had this sort of thing happen before [0]; IMO this could be argued as harm reduction. I'm not sure the argument would be carried, but there is a case to be made. The important thing is to acknowledge this is easy to do and everyone agrees that nudes should be ignored. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak

deafpolygon 3y ago
I think the real harm here is that someone like Taylor Swift can have her searches scrubbed. What about Jane next door? She has no such recourse.
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  It’s actually the opposite. X is making these changes on their own. An individual out of the spotlight could probably sue. In the law public figures are not protected the way individuals are. When sell out and willingly make millions of dollars exploiting your likeness, you don’t get to choose if people make a parody of that likeness.
  - deafpolygon 3y ago
    Yes, X is doing it because Taylor Swift is an important figure for their platform. Jane could sue, but X would claim no responsibility and there would be no loss to X if she left the platform.
maxbond 3y ago
> The harm here isn't AI, or if it is the harm is minimal. > AI is going to make life pretty miserable for good looking women in the public eye. Could you help me understand how you reconcile these two statements? Is the harm minimal, or will women in the public eye be miserable? Or is making women in the public eye miserable not something to take seriously - and if so, why? I'd also be curious if you think the harm will stop there - could you foresee maybe, high schoolers using deepfake porn to bully each other, con artists using cloned voices to commit fraud, deepfake evidence being used to frame someone for a crime, etc? Is there a reason I shouldn't be concerned about these prospects?

Gunax 3y ago

Well I am going to bluntly disagree, sorry. I am dismissive. But in the end, I will be right and you will be wrong. That's the pattern in technology. 1. Some technology is invented 2. It changes the status quo, directly or indirectly, on society. 3. There is some degree of backlash, regulations, and outrage. 4. Everyone accepts the new reality and forgets what it was even like before. Step 3 is often forgotten and considered quaint. The reality is this is an unsolveable situation. Porn deep-fakes are here. There is nothing that will change that. 20 years from now, celebrities will just accept that they are going to exist. I'm not even arguing that the technology is good (im not sure it is) or that I support it. I am arguing that it's inevitable. You think I am going to be irrelevant, but I think it's the opposite. In the last century we have invented number technologies responsible for megadeaths (cars, air pollution, carpet bombing). If those couldn't be stopped after killing thousands every year, then neither will this.

maxbond 3y ago
Your step four is incomplete. In addition to accepting a new normal, we put limits on technology and address the harms. We didn't roll over and accept, say, the destruction of the ozone layer. We put restrictions on the use of CFCs, and we invented new refrigerants that were much less harmful. Though there has been some recent backsliding due to rogue emitters, these measures were effective at stopping and eventually reversing the degradation of the ozone layer. Some more examples include unleaded gasoline, breaks without asbestos, paint and cosmetics that don't include heavy metals, light bulbs that are much more efficient, etc. We've also figured out how to make fuels that don't contain all much sulfur, thus avoiding issues with acid rain. This is an attitude I see on HN a lot. Technological innovation is seen as unstoppable and all powerful - until it's time to innovate new ways to address the problems we've created, and then there's apparently no possibility of coming up with innovative solutions. We're to accept ourselves as passive actors, caught up in the currents of history, with no agency to alter course. An example that I find haunting is OceanGate and Stockton Rush. Rush was all for being innovative when it came to novel submersible construction. But when his engineers wanted to inspect the hull for degradation - can't be done, the hull is too thick to scan. You might expect someone who views themselves as a fearless innovator to see that as an opportunity to develop a new methodology or technology. But Rush was only a fearless innovator when it pleased him, and so he took himself and his customers to their deaths. Frankly I think this attitude is a bad excuse, and not one that society will tolerate forever. This is the path to crippling regulations and trust busting. We can't just foist our externalities on the rest of society forever and not expect them to eventually decide we're incapable of self regulating.

RecycledEle 3y ago

Ohhh nooo...A celebrity got mocked online...how horrible!!1I! /s I assume the deep fakes were mild compared to what goes on in some of her fans' minds.

maxbond 3y ago
I wouldn't say she was mocked, I would call this harassment. You don't stop having rights when you become a celebrity. I also don't believe it's safe to assume this sort of thing will only happen to celebrities going forward. I think you know the difference between imagining something and publishing something, and that you're being facetious.
Zetobal 3y ago
Send me a face portrait and the address of your employer and some of your friend group and I wlii mock you as well. Just so you personally experience it and see what a load of shit your comment is.