5 ms·

First text, then images, soon video and speech. It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium,

First text, then images, soon video and speech. It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium, creating a convincing case either for doing everything in person again, or necessitating cryptographic signatures on absolutely everything.

tomjen3 3y ago
Honestly cryptographic signatures being more widespread does not seem a bad thing to me. Obviously not everywhere: I don't need a reddit worldnews comment or a recipe for blueberry muffins signed.
reaperducer 3y ago
It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium Agreed. I'm still waiting for the part of AI where it's supposed to benefit mankind. So far, it's 10% entrainment, 20% employment elimination, and 70% crypto-grade hype. The next AI winter can't come soon enough so the tech industry can get back to doing useful things.
- Asraelite 3y ago
  > 20% employment elimination How is this not benefiting mankind? If you're concerned with unequal distribution of the generated wealth then that's a political problem, nothing to do with AI.
  - anileated 3y ago
    When I hear “ML-based generative tools pushing people out of their jobs is just a political problem”, that I hear is “ClosedAI and Microsoft definitely had nothing to do with choosing to not license and compensate original creators whose works they have acquired in order to build their commercial products, it’s all the government’s fault”. Often the same people will cry over-regulation about ML tech rollout potentially being suppressed and controlled via policy, even though that is literally the implication of their position.
leovailati 3y ago
> It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium Which, to me, makes sense. Once the underlying technology exists, a malicious actor would not think twice before developing tools of deceptionlike those. It makes sense that OpenAI would work on that "in the open" to demonstrate that we now need to be skeptical of audios.
anon373839 3y ago
In some ways, this just feels like a reversion to the mean for humanity. “Don’t believe everything you read” is a maxim as old as print, and it’s good advice. If people ultimately learn that videos and recordings can’t be trusted, is that a huge loss? I’m not sure. Of course, the road from here to there may be bumpy...
- fragmede 3y ago
  scammers have already used this technology to convince people that someone they know needs money for some reason
  - anon373839 3y ago
    Right, we're in a somewhat dangerous period where the general public doesn't understand the capabilities that exist and how they can be misused. But if you mentally fast-forward to a time when people do understand this and have even become blasé about it, what does that time look like? (Presumably, you don't wire money based on a phone call without kicking the tires a bit...)
    - taskforcegemini 3y ago
      it also means that audio and video proof that someone did you dirty can not be used anymore, because they could be fake
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  In which cases anyhow would they have been a trustworthy content. You could easily take real videos out of context which people were already doing to mislead. Ultimately you should reason and investigate deeper to hold somewhat accurate opinion on anything. Most media and news out there already is where the agenda comes first and then it is about compiling cherry picked content from wide variety of content as evidence for that agenda. And you can find content to support any agenda already. It is a simple algorithm of: 1. We want to prove X. 2. From millions of datapoints we pick the 100 that support X the most. 3. We write an article on it. 4. Most of our readers already agree with X so they will be happy about it. No need to go deeper. 5. Anyone who doesn't agree would probably not read our platform anyway.
Turing_Machine 3y ago
> OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium, creating a convincing case either for doing everything in person again, or necessitating cryptographic signatures on absolutely everything. Am I alone in thinking that this would not be a bad thing?

tomjen3 3y ago

Honestly cryptographic signatures being more widespread does not seem a bad thing to me. Obviously not everywhere: I don't need a reddit worldnews comment or a recipe for blueberry muffins signed.

reaperducer 3y ago

It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium Agreed. I'm still waiting for the part of AI where it's supposed to benefit mankind. So far, it's 10% entrainment, 20% employment elimination, and 70% crypto-grade hype. The next AI winter can't come soon enough so the tech industry can get back to doing useful things.

Asraelite 3y ago
> 20% employment elimination How is this not benefiting mankind? If you're concerned with unequal distribution of the generated wealth then that's a political problem, nothing to do with AI.
- anileated 3y ago
  When I hear “ML-based generative tools pushing people out of their jobs is just a political problem”, that I hear is “ClosedAI and Microsoft definitely had nothing to do with choosing to not license and compensate original creators whose works they have acquired in order to build their commercial products, it’s all the government’s fault”. Often the same people will cry over-regulation about ML tech rollout potentially being suppressed and controlled via policy, even though that is literally the implication of their position.

leovailati 3y ago

> It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium Which, to me, makes sense. Once the underlying technology exists, a malicious actor would not think twice before developing tools of deceptionlike those. It makes sense that OpenAI would work on that "in the open" to demonstrate that we now need to be skeptical of audios.

anon373839 3y ago

In some ways, this just feels like a reversion to the mean for humanity. “Don’t believe everything you read” is a maxim as old as print, and it’s good advice. If people ultimately learn that videos and recordings can’t be trusted, is that a huge loss? I’m not sure. Of course, the road from here to there may be bumpy...

fragmede 3y ago
scammers have already used this technology to convince people that someone they know needs money for some reason
- anon373839 3y ago
  Right, we're in a somewhat dangerous period where the general public doesn't understand the capabilities that exist and how they can be misused. But if you mentally fast-forward to a time when people do understand this and have even become blasé about it, what does that time look like? (Presumably, you don't wire money based on a phone call without kicking the tires a bit...)
  - taskforcegemini 3y ago
    it also means that audio and video proof that someone did you dirty can not be used anymore, because they could be fake
mewpmewp2 3y ago
In which cases anyhow would they have been a trustworthy content. You could easily take real videos out of context which people were already doing to mislead. Ultimately you should reason and investigate deeper to hold somewhat accurate opinion on anything. Most media and news out there already is where the agenda comes first and then it is about compiling cherry picked content from wide variety of content as evidence for that agenda. And you can find content to support any agenda already. It is a simple algorithm of: 1. We want to prove X. 2. From millions of datapoints we pick the 100 that support X the most. 3. We write an article on it. 4. Most of our readers already agree with X so they will be happy about it. No need to go deeper. 5. Anyone who doesn't agree would probably not read our platform anyway.

Turing_Machine 3y ago

> OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium, creating a convincing case either for doing everything in person again, or necessitating cryptographic signatures on absolutely everything. Am I alone in thinking that this would not be a bad thing?