"must" is probably the wrong word, but if they don't develop it, someone else will. At most, it would be delayed, and I'm not sure there's much difference in that.
Not a lot of thought went into it, is what it usually tells me.
But you're right about me not putting a lot of thought. I didn't think this would need more arguing than that.
I still believe that tech is fundamentally neutral, and as such so is its development. Even if a developer intends to give it bad use, the use and development are separate questions.
In the space between both equivocations (yours and the other guy's), lies the potential for moral abuse.
Using it was achieved by different kid level argument "It will prevent even more death and suffering"
The difference is of course a well thought out weighing of options, to feel into the issue and make your choice. Taking my immediate surroundings, a lot of people don’t engage in that level of philosophy. Knee jerk reactions are still very common in our species.
My position is that development is not unethical. I'm not trying to justify this position because I don't think it needs to be. When I said "others will do it anyway", it's not a justification and my original comment wasn't even about my position on this. My comment was referring to the usefulness of stopping the implicit always-ethically-neutral development of a tech in order to stop the potential misuse of it. I'm saying that even if they stopped the development of this one repo, or a few, or all others implementing this tech, it'd be ineffective. This repo is just one bit of the tech. Most of the tech is in its dependencies. If someone wants it and has nefarious uses in mind, they don't really really need this repo for that.
I think this is where we disagree at heart. I don't think that development is an ethically neutral act, any more than any other human activity is ethically neutral.
If there's none, why is expanding our knowledge of what we can do and how any different?
As a society, we very often conflate the two, but they're really very different things.
Tech development doesn't necessitate the production of things, even intangible ones. Technology development in the form of new optimization techniques in existing software for e.g. rendering 3d models or searching data faster or whatever is not producing things, but it's still tech development.
In any case, I was not saying that your perspective is incorrect. I was just saying that my worldview seems rather different from yours.
* action x is legal, but results in a worse world for everyone. * doing action x benefits the first 1000 people who do it. * much more than 1000 are capable of doing x, including me. * if I do it now, I will be one of the first 1000.
If these are true, I think one should do action x. I believe one would be completely justified in doing it.
I think the answer is inherent to the question of whether it's "justified", and the fact that you're being downvoted.
If Prisoner's Dilemma is played once, the optimal strategy is to defect. If it's repeated an unknown number of times, the optimal strategy is tit-for-tat.
Now, if you're an identifiable actor in a pool of tit-for-tat-players, and you have a history of defecting first, you're going to face opponents who normally play tit-for-tat start to defect against you first, too. In the end, you will end up as one of the worst peformers in the player pool.
So when you're asking if it is "justifiable" to defect in a game like this, it is the same as asking "will I be treated worse if I defect in this game". The downvote confirms this, I think. It means that in this population pool, bad behavior is punished (or people pretend it is)
Now, if defecting can either be done secretly or if you're in a popluation pool where everyone defects anyway, then always-defect is probably the nash equillibrium. In that case, defecting will be seen as justifiable.
> (...)In that case, defecting will be seen as justifiable.
Exactly! My argument basically boiled down to this. In certain situations, defecting may be the way to go. I would not blame the defector for doing what is in their best interest.
And “someone would have done this anyway” could very well be what's turning a situation into a prisoner's dilemma, so it could actually be a valid justification in some cases.
But yeah, it could depend on what is meant by "justification" exactly.
I absolutely would. The defector is willingly harming unconsenting others. That the harm would have been caused by someone else anyway doesn't suddenly make it OK.
Rather, one could argue, morality is a set of emotions, norms, beliefs and rules we have gained through culture and evolution in response to certain behavior patterns. And these can be seen as having a game-theoretical foundation. The rules that assigns the label Evil to someone tends to select people that we (or our ingroup) are in an existential conflict with, at a level where it's either us or them.
For instance, we can have rules that define some patterns of behavior as Evil, and have different set of moral rules for treating people depending on whether they are classified as Evil or not.
I realize that this could also apply to lower rank soldiers involved in some war crimes, etc. so I guess it is not that clear cut. But would you blame a random soldier of lowest rank for carrying out terrible orders and not risking himself(or his family)? Well I don't know. I guess I would not.
Of course, the stakes are rarely that high, but the harm done is also rarely that high also.
This is a bit of a tangent, but that's something I never liked about referring to evil things as "inhumane". It seems to me that hurting others in order to help friends, family, or self is very human. In that case, morality is choosing to act against human nature by doing the right thing at the expense of self or loved ones.
- If I catch this escaped slave, I can get the bounty instead of someone else!
- One of us Auschwitz guards will shoot that escaping prisoner; why shouldn’t I get rewarded for it?
So on and so forth.
If a piece of technology is going to be 90% bad 10% good and you can push it to 80% bad then it is completely justifiable to go for it.
Once I’m rich and powerful I can afford to be ethical, isn’t that the way of billionaires anyway?
You know, the most difficult part of this tech is probably the facial tracking, which is probably also used for the animation of 3d avatars. The jump is probably not huge.
Let's say that the tech around this DeepFaceLive repo develops to the point that the repo can become just a 10-line file of glue that makes a 3d model that's just a grid plane with a picture on it that moves according to a webcam feed. Such a repo is redundant and anyone that wants this tech can just apply the repos mentioned in the previous paragraph to do the equivalent.
Are those repos now bad? If not, it seems the ethical question can be resolved by some restructuring of code so bad uses are not made so obvious, while being almost as easy.
Nuclear weapons and the advent of mutually assured destruction has ushered in a world where many, many, many fewer people die of violent conflict.
Technologies that cause destruction are not congruent with destruction. They change the game such that destruction may actually be prevented by their existence. They are tools, nothing more.
It's possible they have permanently eradicated world war. If that's true, they are not fundamentally bad but in fact really quite great. Only time will tell.
I do not agree with this assertion.
That is a nice piece of history.
Ethics is important. And one consequence is: I may die but at least it was not because I made it possible.
Technology is not evil or good.
Even this technology could be great. Jacky Chan, for example, is not going to make any more movies. But I want more of those movies. This very technology would allow that.
Yea, tech is not evil or good, it's all about how people use it and so far, deep fake tech has only been used for evil. From deep fake porn to fraud. The only not evil thing about this are the memes, but we can live without deep fake memes just fine.
But a given technology may be much more suited to doing evil than doing good.
> Jacky Chan, for example, is not going to make any more movies. But I want more of those movies. This very technology would allow that.
Which is something that I would consider ethically wrong unless Jackie Chan consented to it.
This is still on-going. There are thousands of nuclear heads on standby. His technology might end human civilization or even the human race as we know it.
> Technology is not evil or good.
Of course, it's not. Technology is real. Evil and good are imaginary human-brain constructs.
Without Nuclear bombs a "hot" 3rd world-war would have probably happened.
Also no country who has nuclear weapons was ever (directly) attacked.
The second use of this technology is fraud. Go read the issue and the comments linked in the post.
And you should not even need this much info. The simple fact that they mention "mrdeepfake" as one of the 4 communication groups, the second after their Discord server tells you how much good this tech does to the world.
Sounds about right, because that's literally not what I said.
Nothing to do with relativity, just with “if I don’t do it others will”.