You know what? Fuck it. I’m not even into deepfakes. If someone wants to blast rope to me getting railed by waluigi then have at it. The future is now old man.
I don’t use or frequently browse deep fakes and I don’t think they should be regulated. Governments have never regulated the internet in a way that didn’t have cascading negative effects elsewhere.
“Don’t you know that our plans have your interest - not ours - in mind”?
Unironically if it’s a struggle to understand why regulation of AI is far more dangerous than AI than I have a pair of boots to sell you. They go on your neck, and you’ll be the one who asks for them to go there. But don’t worry, they’ll keep you safe, and if you don’t unconditionally beleive me you are somehow wrong.
Unfortunately, it’s computer code and there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent its use. They can only punish its users, and if we know anything about prohibition, it has (at best) zero effect to dissuade potential offenders.
I sincerely hope nobody uses it to generate porn of real people without their consent. With that said, it is highly likely if not absolutely certain that bolstering authority on this issue will have disasterous effects that last for generations. It only takes a brief glance over history to see why.
We have only barely held onto our digital freedom. They are trying to strip it at turn. Now it’s “protect the kids” but we are witnessing the narrative shift in real time.
What I’m saying is don’t be surprised if using open source software carries a prison sentence in first world countries in the near future.
I think you’re assuming we’re discussing regulating deep fakes (the software), when really everyone is talking about regulating deep fakes (, the use of).
It’s foolish to think you can restrict one and not the other, and it’s even more foolish to think our authoritarian governments would do that it they could
… This is to say, making it illegal to generate life-like images and videos of celebrities, non-celebrities, and political figures without consent is in no way this doomsday scenario you say.
Defamation and libel are illegal. You can use open-source tools to perform defamation and libel, or you can use those same tools in a way that doesn’t constitute defamation and libel.
Part of the confusion around regulation, at least in the US, is that movie studios such as Disney REALLY want to be able to use deepfakes of celebrities
I’m shell-shocked from witnessing libertarian tech bros defending deepfake child porn, and I can longer distinguish earnest AI booster sentiment from satire.
My original post was not sarcasm, but if it helps, let me be explicit: People producing CSAM of any kind, real or generated, need to be put through a wood chipper feet first. I would pay money to do myself.
How about this: People are allowed produce those nasty AI images, but every image must be registered and anyone viewing is also registered.
Regular counselling is mandatory for those registered
No matter how you turn it, though, AI will be disruptive to life as we know it. The question is how to handle it. No media outlets will be spared until we figure out a way of validating information.
My favourite vision is how an AI robocaller is chatting with an AI answering machine. But honestly, why have a phone at all? All your loved ones calling may just as well be deep fakes trying to scam you for money.
It is clear we need to do something to prepare, but what? As you say, the cat is already out of the bag, so how do we proceed from here? AntiAI-software in the same way we have antivirus software? Even open source self hosting wount be enough, somehow you need to validate who to trust. Even if it would be a start…
Only people who believe they’d benefit from regulating deepfakes are some high profile and/or internet narcissists.
“Boohoo someone made a video of Trump’s hemorrhoids and Biden licking them” Everyone already knows you can easily fake some video without using “AI” for it, we have a whole fucking industry for it pumping hundred movies out every Saturday. We already know you shouldn’t believe everything you see.
True. Freedom of speech and of the press is a peculiarly American thing. In virtually all other countries… No, wait. That’s the 2nd amendment. What were we talking about?
The past month or so I've started encountering quite a few deepfakes on dating sites. I honestly can't tell they're deepfakes just by looking; the only reason I've realised tell is because they were very obviously Instagram model photos. I reverse image searched them to find where they were taken from and confirm my suspicions that the profile's using stolen photos, only to find that the original photos aren't quite the same. It'll be the exact same shot with the same body but a different face, and with identifying tattoos removed, moles adds, etc.
If they weren't obvious modelling shots that made me want to reverse image search them, I wouldn't have known at all. It makes me wonder how many deepfaked images I've encountered on dating sites already and just not known about because they've been fairly innocuous-looking photos...
That's just disinformation, which again, already exists. 80% of political YT content is someone lying to the viewers to push their agenda. That has nothing to do with deepfakes.
Not exactly. Arguments like “they should be regulated because they can be used for illegal stuff” are moot, since those usages are already regulated. I’m on the fence on the whole regulation thing and I’ve yet to see any actual realistic examples on how regulation would look.
Is it even logical to regulate ai images specifically, or should we lump it in together with any form of image manipulation?
Okay but can you tell the difference between legal real evidence and illegal false evidence?
The technology is there to create this type of false evidence, it’s not going back to the Pandora’s box anymore. The truth is that you can’t trust a single videotape as 100% evidence alone.
Add comment