635
The White House wants to 'cryptographically verify' videos of Joe Biden so viewers don't mistake them for AI deepfakes (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
256 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The White House wants to 'cryptographically verify' videos of Joe Biden so viewers don't mistake them for AI deepfakes::Biden's AI advisor Ben Buchanan said a method of clearly verifying White House releases is "in the works."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 54 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Huh. They actually do something right for once instead of spending years trying to ban A.I tools. I'm pleasantly surprised.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago*

    Bingo. If, at the limit, the purpose of a generative AI is to be indistinguishable from human content, then watermarking and AI detection algorithms are absolutely useless.

    The ONLY means to do this is to have creators verify their human-generated (or vetted) content at the time of publication (providing positive proof), as opposed to attempting to retroactively trying to determine if content was generated by a human (proving a negative).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I mean banning use cases is deffo fair game, generating kiddy porn should be treated as just as heinous as making it the "traditional" way IMO

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yikes! The implication is that it does not matter if a child was victimized. It's "heinous", not because of a child's suffering, but because... ?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Man imagine trying to make "ethical child rape content" a thing. What were the lolicons not doing it for ya anymore?

    As for how it's exactly as heinous, it's the sexual objectification of a child, it doesn't matter if it's a real child or not, the mere existence of the material itself is an act of normalization and validation of wanting to rape children.

    Being around at all contributes to the harm of every child victimised by a viewer of that material.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I see. Since the suffering of others does not register with you, you must believe that any "bleeding heart liberal" really has some other motive. Well, no. Most (I hope, but at least some) people are really disturbed by the suffering of others.

    I take the "normalization" argument seriously. But I note that it is not given much credence in other contexts; violent media, games, ... Perhaps the "gateway drug" argument is the closest parallel.

    In the very least, it drives pedophiles underground where they cannot be reached by digital streetworkers, who might help them not to cause harm. Instead, they form clandestine communities that are already criminal. I doubt that makes any child safer. But it's not about children suffering for you, so whatever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Man imagine continuing to try and argue Ethical Child Rape Content should be a thing.

    If we want to make sweeping attacks on character, I'd rather be on the "All Child Rape Material is Bad" side of the argument but whatever floats ya boat.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I don't think he's arguing that, and I don't think you believe that either. Doubt any of us would consider that content ethical, but what he's saying is it's not nearly the same as actually doing harm (as opposed what you said in your original post).

    You implying that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow into those awful things is extremely poor taste. I'd expect so much more on Lemmy, that is a Reddit/Facebook level debate tactic. I guess I'm going to get accused of that too now?

    I don't like to give any of your posts any credit here, but I can somewhat see the normalization argument. However, where is the line drawn regarding other content that could be harmful because normalized. What about adult non consensual type porn, violence on TV and video games, etc. Sliding scale and everyone might draw the line somewhere else. There's good reason why thinking about an awful things (or writing, drawing, creating fiction about it) is not the same as doing an awful thing.

    I doubt you'll think much of this, but please really try to be better. It's 2024, time to let calling anyone you disagree with a pedo back on facebook in the 90s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Idk, making CP where a child is raped vs making CP where no children are involved seem on very different levels of bad to me.

    Both utterly repulsive, but certainly not exactly the same.

    One has a non-consenting child being abused, a child that will likely carry the scars of that for a long time, the other doesn't. One is worse than the other.

    E: do the downvoters like... not care about child sexual assault/rape or something? Raping a child and taking pictures of it is very obviously worse than putting parameters into an AI image generator. Both are vile. One is worse. Saying they're equally bad is attributing zero harm to the actual assaulting children part.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Man imagine trying to make the case for Ethical Child Rape Material.

    You are not going to get anywhere with this line of discussion, stop now before you say something that deservedly puts you on a watchlist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I'm not making the case for that at all, and I find you attempting to make out that I am into child porn a disgusting debate tactic.

    "Anybody who disagrees with my take is a paedophile" is such a poor argument and serves only to shut down discussion.

    It's very obviously not what I'm saying, and anybody with any reading comprehension at all can see that plainly.

    You'll notice I called it "utterly repulsive" in my comment - does that sound like the words of a child porn advocate?

    The fact that you apparently don't care at all about the child suffering side of it is quite troubling. If a child is harmed in its creation, then that's obviously worse than some creepy fuck drawing loli in Inkscape or typing parameters into an AI image generator. I can't believe this is even a discussion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent