3 ms·
> And you advocate that the tool should refuse? Yup, and I advocate this on ethical grounds, and I don't care if laws allow this (and even they do not). > Wha
by bayindirh 1y ago
> And you advocate that the tool should refuse?
Yup, and I advocate this on ethical grounds, and I don't care if laws allow this (and even they do not).
> What are you upset about?
Double standards & free pass to corporations. When an individual does or enables this, SWAT will raid their home and take them and their everything in six hours or less.
When a company does this, people go "it's just an image, why so upset".
I believe people shall have dignity and rights. This is why I'm upset.
Why are you so upset that I'm upset about disregard for human dignity?
- andsoitis 1y agoThanks, I'm not particularly upset. I was just curious to understand your point of view better. The reason I'm not super upset is that I believe these things will settle at a reasonable state that societies expect. Especially large corporations will conform to societal expectations. If you're very worried about deepfakes of actual people, I think you should be more concerned about those models that are NOT the product of a large company, but rather the ones that any random person can run on their computer.
- UncleMeat 1y agoScale matters. Yes, local models will always be able to run without any guardrails and somebody can use them to create as much objectionable content as they want. But the vast majority of people will interact with these tools through the most convenient mechanism, which isn't a local model. Guardrails can be valuable here even if people can go somewhere else.