3 ms·

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 reall

by 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?
- roenxi 3y ago
  Being in the public eye is already miserable. The public eye appears to be a close relation to the Eye of Sauron. These people smile a lot, but they don't look like they're having much fun. The existence of AI will make life a bit worse for some of them. But life being better or worse doesn't really reach my standard of 'more harm' here. I suppose what I was thinking is a bit like if someone cuts in front of me in a queue. I might be worse off, certainly could feel annoyance, but I wouldn't say I'm harmed. I just don't like it. For harm to have happened I would actually have to be ... I dunno, harmed. Ms. Swift already has to deal with literal stalkers. The baseline of what public people are expected to put up with is already high. I'm not sure this thing is really moving the bar. > I'd also be curious if you think... 2 thirds of that (bullying, miscarriage of justice) are already major problems. The legal system is already a crapshoot; they do there best but it makes a lot of mistakes. I could see the net effect of AI being helpful in both cases; I'm more excited about neutral, AI judges than I am worried about evidence quality dropping off. Con artists, we'll see what happens. The major protection I've relied on to date has been rollbacks and balances rather than preventing fraud up front. Social engineering is hard to stop. You can feel concerned about whatever you like, of course.
  - maxbond 3y ago
    To be frank this is nonsense. People in the public eye are miserable so it doesn't matter if they're more miserable? Making lide worse isn't harm? I don't even know what harm would mean, then. I'm always bemused when people counter with the observation that something is already a problem. Okay? So then we should agree that more if it is also a problem, right? It's like saying the invention of the machine gun wasn't a factor in WW2, because we had already had guns and before that we had crossbows. There was a phase change with the machine gun and things were quite different. Similarly, if people are able to produce deepfakes at an industrial scale, things will be very different.

by roenxi 3y ago

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?

roenxi 3y ago
Being in the public eye is already miserable. The public eye appears to be a close relation to the Eye of Sauron. These people smile a lot, but they don't look like they're having much fun. The existence of AI will make life a bit worse for some of them. But life being better or worse doesn't really reach my standard of 'more harm' here. I suppose what I was thinking is a bit like if someone cuts in front of me in a queue. I might be worse off, certainly could feel annoyance, but I wouldn't say I'm harmed. I just don't like it. For harm to have happened I would actually have to be ... I dunno, harmed. Ms. Swift already has to deal with literal stalkers. The baseline of what public people are expected to put up with is already high. I'm not sure this thing is really moving the bar. > I'd also be curious if you think... 2 thirds of that (bullying, miscarriage of justice) are already major problems. The legal system is already a crapshoot; they do there best but it makes a lot of mistakes. I could see the net effect of AI being helpful in both cases; I'm more excited about neutral, AI judges than I am worried about evidence quality dropping off. Con artists, we'll see what happens. The major protection I've relied on to date has been rollbacks and balances rather than preventing fraud up front. Social engineering is hard to stop. You can feel concerned about whatever you like, of course.
- maxbond 3y ago
  To be frank this is nonsense. People in the public eye are miserable so it doesn't matter if they're more miserable? Making lide worse isn't harm? I don't even know what harm would mean, then. I'm always bemused when people counter with the observation that something is already a problem. Okay? So then we should agree that more if it is also a problem, right? It's like saying the invention of the machine gun wasn't a factor in WW2, because we had already had guns and before that we had crossbows. There was a phase change with the machine gun and things were quite different. Similarly, if people are able to produce deepfakes at an industrial scale, things will be very different.