4 ms·

The general form of the argument is just “when things happen very frequently, people get used to them.” This is both true and a terrible reason to be okay with

The general form of the argument is just “when things happen very frequently, people get used to them.” This is both true and a terrible reason to be okay with bad things proliferating. And it’s especially suspicious when this argument is leveled by people who generally aren’t going to be victimized by said bad things.

jncfhnb 3y ago
All of these things you’re listing are tangible events that cause specific harm to someone. A nude photo is information. If you can turn it from implied authenticity to implied inauthenticity then the harm is reduced. The argument here is not about being used to things.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Does harassment to the point of job loss, familial dysfunction, or suicide count as tangible harm or not tangible? Sure, if you can do that. Of course the question is whether/when that’ll happen and how many young people have to be victimized first in order to get there — and for what benefit?
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Was your claim above not absolute in terms of outcomes? I mean sure, you were "just joking" I suppose, but what's the point of conversation if we normalize bait and switching?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      What was I joking about and what was absolute in terms of outcomes?
      - mistermann 3y ago
        Let's try a quick litmus test: above, did you make any assertions that are non-factual?
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Umm I made assertions in which I don't believe, of the shape "Near term bad thing is okay because in the long run it might have good second order consequences." Not sure what's "non-factual" about it?
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Honestly I think it’s unlikely that this will affect many people at all. The harassment is the problem and the ai photos don’t really make it any easier to do. Maybe we’re entering a world where instead of saying suck a dick, you send someone a gif of them sucking off their dad, but as far as actual consequences go I think it’s pretty much immediately discreditable. Plausible deniability is all people ever really need.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      The “this is no different than before!” argument is dismissible on its face. As evidenced by NVDA’s trillion dollar valuation and the hundreds of billions being deployed into AI companies — that’s not because they’re building stuff that makes the world just the same as it was before. Ah yes, middle school/high school bullies: famously disempowered by things like plausible deniability. The suffering caused by bullying and harassment: powerless in the light of plausible deniability. AFAICT the people who would be close to this issue (e.g. people who pay attention to online harassment, teen mental health, and child pornography) come to a different prediction as far as impact. I’m far more inclined to believe them than people leveling an argument that, as I said, can just as readily defend murder, car thefts, and medical malpractice. All the suffering is just in people’s heads and all of it can be eliminated by proliferating the behavior to sufficient degree.
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        > The “this is no different than before!” argument is dismissible on its face. As evidenced by NVDA’s trillion dollar valuation and the hundreds of billions being deployed into AI companies — that’s not because they’re building stuff that makes the world just the same as it was before. By this logic, you need to worry about me using AI to seduce your mom. Because NVIDIA spent a TRILLION DOLLARS! > Ah yes, middle school/high school bullies: famously disempowered by things like plausible deniability. The suffering caused by bullying and harassment: powerless in the light of plausible deniability. If bullies can push things as truth regardless of their merit then false information doesn’t matter.
        3y ago

jncfhnb 3y ago

All of these things you’re listing are tangible events that cause specific harm to someone. A nude photo is information. If you can turn it from implied authenticity to implied inauthenticity then the harm is reduced. The argument here is not about being used to things.

ethanbond 3y ago
Does harassment to the point of job loss, familial dysfunction, or suicide count as tangible harm or not tangible? Sure, if you can do that. Of course the question is whether/when that’ll happen and how many young people have to be victimized first in order to get there — and for what benefit?
- mistermann 3y ago
  Was your claim above not absolute in terms of outcomes? I mean sure, you were "just joking" I suppose, but what's the point of conversation if we normalize bait and switching?
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    What was I joking about and what was absolute in terms of outcomes?
    - mistermann 3y ago
      Let's try a quick litmus test: above, did you make any assertions that are non-factual?
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        Umm I made assertions in which I don't believe, of the shape "Near term bad thing is okay because in the long run it might have good second order consequences." Not sure what's "non-factual" about it?
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Honestly I think it’s unlikely that this will affect many people at all. The harassment is the problem and the ai photos don’t really make it any easier to do. Maybe we’re entering a world where instead of saying suck a dick, you send someone a gif of them sucking off their dad, but as far as actual consequences go I think it’s pretty much immediately discreditable. Plausible deniability is all people ever really need.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    The “this is no different than before!” argument is dismissible on its face. As evidenced by NVDA’s trillion dollar valuation and the hundreds of billions being deployed into AI companies — that’s not because they’re building stuff that makes the world just the same as it was before. Ah yes, middle school/high school bullies: famously disempowered by things like plausible deniability. The suffering caused by bullying and harassment: powerless in the light of plausible deniability. AFAICT the people who would be close to this issue (e.g. people who pay attention to online harassment, teen mental health, and child pornography) come to a different prediction as far as impact. I’m far more inclined to believe them than people leveling an argument that, as I said, can just as readily defend murder, car thefts, and medical malpractice. All the suffering is just in people’s heads and all of it can be eliminated by proliferating the behavior to sufficient degree.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      > The “this is no different than before!” argument is dismissible on its face. As evidenced by NVDA’s trillion dollar valuation and the hundreds of billions being deployed into AI companies — that’s not because they’re building stuff that makes the world just the same as it was before. By this logic, you need to worry about me using AI to seduce your mom. Because NVIDIA spent a TRILLION DOLLARS! > Ah yes, middle school/high school bullies: famously disempowered by things like plausible deniability. The suffering caused by bullying and harassment: powerless in the light of plausible deniability. If bullies can push things as truth regardless of their merit then false information doesn’t matter.
      - 3y ago