Hacker News Reader

Comment by avaer | Hacker News Reader

There's several other areas that would be good to categorically ban AI usage from:

  - gambling
  - dating
  - hiring
  - advertising

It shouldn't even be controversial that this would be broadly good for society.

I say that as an AI maximalist: I fully trust AI with these things. I do not trust the humans using the AI.

View on HN

> - dating

That's called catfishing.

For the younger generations, it's just called Tuesday.

You trust AI with dating?

Maybe his taste in partners is just that bad

They said to ban AI usage in dating (sites, I assume)?

And then immediately wrote “I fully trust AI with these things”

But also wrote that he didn’t trust the humans behind the AI.

Must be a politician

Nobody said that he did

Perhaps we need OP to explain "I fully trust AI with these things", because it is difficult to define trust in this sense. Yes of course the human motivation was always going to be the real "AI threat", and fraud (and a hugely increased spam volume) was always going to be the main route of AI damage to society.

Does basic photoshop count as AI usage...? What about changing color balance, dynamic range, etc?

Obviously not, though they may count as misleading image manipulation, and should be similarly regulated. The problem is subjectivity - AI is just a convenient bright line with an easy definition.

You want the government to monitor people's profiles on dating apps? The ministry of dating photos

Oi, you got a loicense for that f-stop slop?

Making murder illegal doesn't imply that the government stalks you 24/7 to make sure you don't murder someone

Not every comment on the internet is 100% serious

In this context the opposite would be called "trolling" and is not allowed on HN.

That is not even close to trolling. It's called a joke where you exaggerate the premise because it's an amusing thought.

I'm not sure the line defining what you would consider AI is actually all that bright. Sharpening? Content-aware fill? Seam carving? Style transfer? How would you define AI to draw the line where you want?

I'm sure soon enough dating apps will get smart and instead of the "you have no matches" they will make some fake AI matches so you have a feeling that something is happening and you have a chance of actually meeting someone.

don't they already do that? They used to use real people's photos from other apps. I'm sure they use AI now.

No but we used to call that “photoshopping an image” for a reason, especially when done to an extreme.

Most real estate listing using a type of "HDR" exposure stacking due to the difficulty in taking photos of rooms that exposure the interior correctly and also expose the view from the windows in the same photo. It doesn't show things that aren't there, and personally I see it as acceptable, but I could see some law accidentally making it illegal.

Advertising would be fine if they checked it. Food advertising has used fake images forever, but it's okay because you know the meatballs don't look like that. You have an idea of what warm fries taste like without the fake heat imagery.

But the dress you get is not the same as the dress in the picture. If the model looked like you, the dress should fit the same, but the AI dresses don't. Same figure, same skin color, same height, and yet the dress looks different.

That's the problem with homes. There's no way a room fits that many things but AI will make it look like it does. There's a distortion where it changes the specification entirely.

It's like showing someone playing Fallout 4 on a MacBook Air. It's a deceptive practice, unlike the cereal boxes showing milk.

> Food advertising has used fake images forever, but it's okay because you know the meatballs don't look like that.

Highly disagree. Color retouch or ambience or effects, sure. But changing shape, size, base color and perhaps some other things is deceit. Japan can do this, other countries should able too

Reply on news.ycombinator.com