Anyone who disagrees join my start up where we generate the voice of dead family members so we can get people to pay indulgences to escape hell.
Anyone who disagrees join my start up where we generate the voice of dead family members so we can get people to pay indulgences to escape hell.
Not only is the behavior that is being complained about (people fraudulently pretending to be something they aren't) already illegal in most jurisdictions the unintended consequences of such a poorly thought out policy are complete unconsidered.
The objections are obvious but to list some:
* Behavior should be regulated, not technologies. Otherwise someone will use an alternative technology to perform the same attack and it won't be covered.
* This behavior is already covered by fraud regulations
* How would you even "ban AI" when people can't define it
* The only approach that could be considered would be to take a licensing approach to writing any software. The downsides to this are considerable and hopefully self-evident to this audience.
I'd like to ban "social media", but how do you define that in a way that kills what you want (eg twitter, facebook, /r/all) and preserves less detrimental forms of it (eg HN or old phpbb forums) ?
edit- Oh and furthermore, how do you deal with every country who decides to not ban it?
Why is it the difficulties of regulating something brought up as if it means it prevents any action taken at all.
“Id like to ban murder but how do how do you define murder and ban the cases we want (murder) and allow the cases we do (self defense)? And what about countries who decide not to ban murder?”
Seems reasonable on its face, but the real issue then becomes damage done-vs-effort needed to prevent it
Your example is murder, but the problem is then a scaling issue; not many people really want to commit murder. It takes effort, and the sample size is so small we can evaluate it on a case-by-case basis. But it's trivial to deepfake one face onto another, so it's likely a lot of people will try it for their own amusement.
So basically murder to most people is brutal and ugly. A Deepfake is clicking a few buttons; it's abstract and hard to see as a real crime for most people.(...ya know, kinda like how I'll pirate a song but I'm not going to stuff CDs into my pockets at the local retail store)
And now we can expand that idea- what counts as a deepfake? The face editing is obvious here but what about training an AI to replicate someone else's voice? What about using the Lamba character.ai site to replicate Sonic or Indiana Jones? That's where it really gets tricky and where I feel politicians will be at a loss to construct any meaningful legislation.
From my perspective, seems quite difficult
Regulation is fine, but prohibition rarely works.
Here's the thing, you're almost most likely to be successful as a scammer with a poor deepfake with a good deepfake.
This is why so many scams are so unbelievable in their premise (Nigerian princes , UN Lottery, etc...). Falling for the premise is a good indicator that the leads they get will turn a profit because they indicate vulnerability.
This is partly why I don't think regulation would stop much of the scamming.
So I think it does matter how authentic the deepfake appears. I’m ambivalent on whether banning the technology is a good idea or even how feasible it could be, but to the extent that deepfakes are limited I do think it would be bad for scammers.
But there's a thousand other ways to get that exact info, even/especially online.
But you can Google "the anarchist cookbook" and get that information just fine (for better or for worse[1])
[1] https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/books-as-contraband-the-st...
No surprise Disney (and others) are going to be getting on that bandwagon.
People should have to learn not to be scammed rather than trying to ban scams. People should be taught that speech is not violence instead of trying to ban speech.
If this development is what it takes to finally empower people to not take their health and fitness advice from Joe Rogan and some other internet chumbo, I say it can't come soon enough. That a few additional people might fall for these things is a small price, and one I'm willing to pay.
What you are talking about is simple prior restraint on computer generated art, in the cases where the speech is not already covered by fraud laws.