Hacker News Reader

Comment by derektank | Hacker News Reader

The harms associated with someone creating a deep fake of you are real but they're pretty insignificant compared to the harms associated with being sex trafficked or being exposed to an STI or being unable to find traditional employment after working in the industry.

View on HN

You couldn’t just photoshop that before ai came out?

What if you get a model that is 99% similar to your “target” - what we do with that?

Sure, someone skilled could spend an hour or so photoshoping someone nude. But any teenager can do that to a classmate in 30 seconds with ai

So just because the poor can do what the rich could do before what it means?

Before only rich can afford to pay a pro to do photoshop. Now any poor person can get.

So why when rich can is fine and when everyone can is a problem?

Uhh it wasn’t fine when the rich did it?

Think about the change we saw in combat death tolls when things went from flintlock muskets to machine guns, or when battleships gave way to aircraft, and how many people died unnecessarily due to the generals who were slow to update their tactics. Deepfakes are like that because they lower the cost and improve the success rates enough to be transformative and they cause harm which can’t easily be countered. We’re not going to instantly train society to be better at media literacy and the police can’t just ignore reports of sex crimes, so we’re just having to accept that it’s easier to hurt people than it used to be.

Would you support installing public spy cams in everyone's bedrooms so as to end the demand for human trafficking in porn?

No? And I didn't suggest deepfakes should be legal.

I was just pointing out that when you're talking about the scale of harm caused by the existing sex industry compared to the scale of harm caused by AI generated pornographic imagery, one far outweighs the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com