3 ms·

How long can we keep trying to put a finger in this particular dike? In five years, most people will be able to run a local LLM capable of whatever nefarious pu

How long can we keep trying to put a finger in this particular dike? In five years, most people will be able to run a local LLM capable of whatever nefarious purposes they choose.

dmitrygr 9mo ago
[flagged]
lenerdenator 9mo ago
That's their business. If there's a business operating for profit (and Twitter is, ostensibly) and their tool posts pictures of me undressed, then I am going to have a problem with it. And I'm just some dude. It probably means a lot more for women who are celebrities. "It's inevitable" isn't an excuse for bad corporate or personal behavior involving technology. Taken to its logical conclusion, we're all going to die, so it's just executing on the inevitable when someone is murdered.
- standardUser 9mo ago
  The only excuses for bad corporate behavior are bad corporate laws and weak enforcement.
  - lenerdenator 9mo ago
    That's often because of regulatory capture.
  - yndoendo 9mo ago
    How do you get proper laws passed when the politicians are bought and paid for by the same corporations? In the USA ... a company can declare bankruptcy and shed the debt / liabilities while a person cannot shed most debt after declaring bankruptcy. [0] [1] USA politicians favor companies over the people. I personal support new corporate laws similar to California's three strikes law. Instead of allow companies to budget for fines the CEO and Executives go to jail with the corporation being broken up after habitually breaking same the laws. [0] https://hls.harvard.edu/today/expert-explains-how-companies-are-using-a-controversial-bankruptcy-maneuver-to-handle-mass-tort-claims/ https://hls.harvard.edu/today/expert-explains-how-companies-... [1] https://thenewpress.org/books/unjust-debts/ https://thenewpress.org/books/unjust-debts/
riffraff 9mo ago
I guess the difference is that one can point to the ToS and say "look we said no deepfakes" and block you if you upload a deepfake produced locally, but not if you use the built-in deepfake generator.
buellerbueller 9mo ago
So, because someone could hypothetically abuse their own child, we should stop trying to thwart child trafficking? Is that your line of argumentation, because if not, I don't understand what you are saying.
- standardUser 9mo ago
  I am saying that half-assed measures that rely on the imaginary goodwill of megacorps is getting us nowhere, fast.
  - freejazz 9mo ago
    They don't need to have good will, they just need to not do the bad thing.
    - standardUser 9mo ago
      Explain why any for-profit enterprise would ever take any action that wasn't in it's own interest, unless compelled by law.
      - freejazz 9mo ago
        Big turn around from needing good will to something being in their interest
        standardUser 9mo ago
        I fail to see what "good will" has to do with anything.
        freejazz 9mo ago
        Then why did you mention it? >"I am saying that half-assed measures that rely on the imaginary *GOOD WILL* of megacorps is getting us nowhere, fast."
badgersnake 9mo ago
And it’ll still quite rightly be illegal.
taurath 9mo ago
Is it not illegal defamation to have gen-AI post a deepfake in public? Photoshop existed before. Is it not illegal to post CSAM, regardless of where it comes from? No other company would touch this sort of thing - they’d be unable to make any money, their payment providers would ban them, their banks would run away.
- bigstrat2003 9mo ago
  > Is it not illegal to post CSAM, regardless of where it comes from? This is a great example of why "CSAM" is a terrible term and why CP was/is better. If you generate pornographic images of children using an AI tool it is by definition not CSAM, as no children were sexually assaulted. But it is still CP.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - twosdai 9mo ago
    > no children were sexually assaulted Generating pictures of a real child naked is assault. Imagine finding child photos of yourself online naked being passed around. Its extremely unpleasant and its assault. If you're arguing that generating a "fake child" is somehow significantly different and that you want to split hairs over the CSAM/CP term in that specific case. Its not a great take to be honest, people understand CSAM, actually verifying if its a "real" child or not, is not really relevant.
    - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
      >actually verifying if its a "real" child or not, is not really relevant. It's entirely relevant. Is the law protecting victims or banning depictions? If you try to do the latter, you'll run head first into the decades long debate that is the obscenity test in the US. The former, meanwhile, is made as a way to make sure people aren't hurt. It's not too dissimilar to freedom of speech vs slander.

How long can we keep trying to put a finger in this particular dike? In five years, most people will be able to run a local LLM capable of whatever nefarious purposes they choose.

dmitrygr 9mo ago

[flagged]

lenerdenator 9mo ago

That's their business. If there's a business operating for profit (and Twitter is, ostensibly) and their tool posts pictures of me undressed, then I am going to have a problem with it. And I'm just some dude. It probably means a lot more for women who are celebrities. "It's inevitable" isn't an excuse for bad corporate or personal behavior involving technology. Taken to its logical conclusion, we're all going to die, so it's just executing on the inevitable when someone is murdered.

standardUser 9mo ago
The only excuses for bad corporate behavior are bad corporate laws and weak enforcement.
- lenerdenator 9mo ago
  That's often because of regulatory capture.
- yndoendo 9mo ago
  How do you get proper laws passed when the politicians are bought and paid for by the same corporations? In the USA ... a company can declare bankruptcy and shed the debt / liabilities while a person cannot shed most debt after declaring bankruptcy. [0] [1] USA politicians favor companies over the people. I personal support new corporate laws similar to California's three strikes law. Instead of allow companies to budget for fines the CEO and Executives go to jail with the corporation being broken up after habitually breaking same the laws. [0] https://hls.harvard.edu/today/expert-explains-how-companies-are-using-a-controversial-bankruptcy-maneuver-to-handle-mass-tort-claims/ https://hls.harvard.edu/today/expert-explains-how-companies-... [1] https://thenewpress.org/books/unjust-debts/ https://thenewpress.org/books/unjust-debts/

riffraff 9mo ago

I guess the difference is that one can point to the ToS and say "look we said no deepfakes" and block you if you upload a deepfake produced locally, but not if you use the built-in deepfake generator.

buellerbueller 9mo ago

So, because someone could hypothetically abuse their own child, we should stop trying to thwart child trafficking? Is that your line of argumentation, because if not, I don't understand what you are saying.

standardUser 9mo ago
I am saying that half-assed measures that rely on the imaginary goodwill of megacorps is getting us nowhere, fast.
- freejazz 9mo ago
  They don't need to have good will, they just need to not do the bad thing.
  - standardUser 9mo ago
    Explain why any for-profit enterprise would ever take any action that wasn't in it's own interest, unless compelled by law.
    - freejazz 9mo ago
      Big turn around from needing good will to something being in their interest
      - standardUser 9mo ago
        I fail to see what "good will" has to do with anything.
        freejazz 9mo ago
        Then why did you mention it? >"I am saying that half-assed measures that rely on the imaginary *GOOD WILL* of megacorps is getting us nowhere, fast."

badgersnake 9mo ago

And it’ll still quite rightly be illegal.

taurath 9mo ago

Is it not illegal defamation to have gen-AI post a deepfake in public? Photoshop existed before. Is it not illegal to post CSAM, regardless of where it comes from? No other company would touch this sort of thing - they’d be unable to make any money, their payment providers would ban them, their banks would run away.

bigstrat2003 9mo ago
> Is it not illegal to post CSAM, regardless of where it comes from? This is a great example of why "CSAM" is a terrible term and why CP was/is better. If you generate pornographic images of children using an AI tool it is by definition not CSAM, as no children were sexually assaulted. But it is still CP.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- twosdai 9mo ago
  > no children were sexually assaulted Generating pictures of a real child naked is assault. Imagine finding child photos of yourself online naked being passed around. Its extremely unpleasant and its assault. If you're arguing that generating a "fake child" is somehow significantly different and that you want to split hairs over the CSAM/CP term in that specific case. Its not a great take to be honest, people understand CSAM, actually verifying if its a "real" child or not, is not really relevant.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    >actually verifying if its a "real" child or not, is not really relevant. It's entirely relevant. Is the law protecting victims or banning depictions? If you try to do the latter, you'll run head first into the decades long debate that is the obscenity test in the US. The former, meanwhile, is made as a way to make sure people aren't hurt. It's not too dissimilar to freedom of speech vs slander.