Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it. Imagine an artificial agent manipulating public opinion. Imagine not having to interact with your boss who already treats you like cattle. Imagine a completely atomized society.
>Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it.
Don't care. >Imagine an artificial agent manipulating public opinion.
We already do that, just with people.
But don't think you'll be the one to take advantage of it. Israel published a false image to manipulate public opinion. Today it is still possible to verify the authenticity of the images. This may not be possible in the future.
That's nothing. We lived through decades of not being able to verify authenticity of images. What's more insidious is the gradual narrative shaping that has been in place for the last decade via algorithms. Google, FB, et al influence what you see and don't see and they can do this with trivial AI that has already been commoditized.
No matter how impersonal your boss is, he and your co-workers still need to physically interact with you, this has weight in the boss-employee relationship.
>Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it.
This, as similar situations eg, what if a video emerges of Putin claiming to have launched nuclear missiles etc, is simply not an issue.
If AI gets to the point it can make convincing video, and everyone knows that it can make convincing video, then they will assumed to be false until validated.
If someone made porn of me for their own pleasure, then more power to them.
If someone made porn in an attempt to black mail me, or just humiliate me, then it simply won't work because everyone would know it's fake.
In fact if genuine footage of me somehow got public it makes it easier to just say it's fake.
how would you feel if you knew that all your friends and coworkers had seen or at least heard about a video of you engaging in some humiliating sexual act? even if you were sure that most of them thought it was fake, they'd still be thinking about it every time you talked to them, and joking about it behind your back.
It's just not a situation that would happen. Noone wants to see porn of me, especially my coworkers and especially if they knew it was fake.
The question is no sensical.
This is schizo main character thinking that is completely delusional.
okay sure, you're not attractive enough for anyone to want to see you naked, i'm not doubting that, but can you imagine that other people who are not you might feel differently from you if this happened to them?
You want to preserve "morals and good manners" but you turn on your computer every night and see women and children being violently shot in any random video game.
The important thing you should realize is that Sex should at least be as unconstrained as violence. You think it's poor manners or immoral to have a computer generate porn because you've been conditioned all your life to think wanton violence is far more wholesome than sex, because this is how we build good soldiers who enter the military to continue our wars overseas for resources. Sex doesn't do that.
The computer generating any kind of violent or sexual imagery really isn't any more immoral than you seeing it in a video game. They're both as equally non-real. AI generated porn is at least unreal enough to not even involve another person.
I understood your argument, but we don't have video games with children and women dying, bad example kek I hate violence. I don't want anyone in a war zone.
> but we don't have video games with children and women dying,
Yes we do. Where the hell have you been?
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1716740/discussions/0/3824174554260139177/
In modern games, the result of adding an equal number of women and men on the frontline means that the thing you're plastering into spaghetti with an assault rifle is 50% likely to be a woman. People noticed this as far back as the last Battlefield.
And children, you don't know too much about modern games if you think that's not a thing you can do in games, now. Spec Ops: The Line had you genocide women and children as a story feature, and that was over ten years ago at this point.
>I hate violence.
Yet you don't complain about a medium that's exclusively about violence, instead focusing on its use that involves Sex. Curious!
The thing I really just want is consistency. ALL of it is imaginary. Putting white powder on civilians in Spec Ops is just as imaginary as making a imaginary tit in your video card.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Ok, I think I've lost the argument.
6 months ago
Anonymous
I really don't think I'm trying to 'win' an argument, honestly, I don't. I hate the idea that arguments are made to be 'won'.
I just think it's really silly how we've come to accept imaginary violence as being nothing to worry about but imaginary sex is worthy of changing the whole of how computers function just to prevent it from happening.
Your point of view is perfectly valid, why should people be able to generate tons of CP using their graphics card? It's not a win or lose thing. It's just your point of view.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>imaginary violence as being nothing to worry about but imaginary sex is worthy
The distinction relies on the bright line that mentally healthy people don't want to commit any violence, but they do want to have some sex. Seeing person A kill person B won't make you want to kill person B too, but seeing person A have sex with person B might make you want to have sex with person B. Fortunately mentally healthy people don't then plan to have sex with person B, especially not non-consensual sex, but that doesn't change the fact that the feelings generated by the two types of media are completely different.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>Seeing person A kill person B won't make you want to kill person B too, but seeing person A have sex with person B might make you want to have sex with person B.
???
6 months ago
Anonymous
If you see an attractive person in a sexual or suggestive context, does that not make you think of them as someone who you could theoretically have sex with? Maybe you automatically think that about attractive people you see in non-sexual contexts too.
6 months ago
Anonymous
While you're totally horny, I'm completely depressed.
No, for all questions.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Don't worry, November's nearly over.
6 months ago
Anonymous
Well I DO want to frick my waifu, but she's just as imaginary as her breasts I generate in Stable Diffusion. Even if I shot her, it'd hurt me, but it would still be imaginary.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>The distinction relies on the bright line that mentally healthy people don't want to commit any violence, but they do want to have some sex
I am of the opinion that our caveman brains still believe Violence and sex are healthy parts of life. Normal people want to commit as much violence as the interred inmate, but the difference is they know their boundaries.
Which is why, imaginary violence is really just fine. Who cares if I go imaginary hunting for some imaginary human who is my imaginary tribal outsider? None of it is real. It's as real in terms of violence as team sports simulating imaginary tribal wars that make our brains extremely happy when our imaginary tribe wins.
6 months ago
Anonymous
>I hate the idea that arguments are made to be 'won'.
And yet you act exactly as though you do. Curious.
>I understood your argument, but we don't have video games with children and women dying,
grandpa here thinks video games are still pong and pac-man. Jack Thompson was right in a lot of ways in that the race to be the most violent and psychopathic is a one-way street as games NEED to be more over-the-top and violent for marketing purposes.
But having the government regulate them is still a really, really, really stupid idea.
OP said there is no need for regulation, I don't think so. I may have difficulty predicting the impact of technology, but we can't deny that it will have an impact, for better or worse.
>OP said there is no need for regulation, I don't think so.
Well then you're immensely short-sighted.
You want THIS GUY and next year THAT GUY to tell YOU what YOU can or can't do with your computer?
This guy already went on his cringe tirade against personal AI in a presentation so disconnected it may as well have been generated by an AI, and he was reading it from a script. That guy already said the #1 threat to gradeschoolers was video games a few years ago.
And you want them regulating your computer at a level that would require government software to spy on your GPU?
My man, you're insane, malevolent, or just moronic for wishing these things.
The obvious solution to all these practical problems is to just increase control and limit the technology so that only a few chosen megacorps can have it, provided they keep closely watching what you are doing with it. It does not sound like it's going to be all good.
On the other hand, talking about muh existential risk is still just sci-fi fantasy. People can not even define what AGI is.
The solution is for people involved in creating AIs to be aware of the impact of technology. If your vision is this, us vs the government and mega corporations, we are already in an AI war. The implications of this are many. We already live in a cyberpunk world.
Yes, I'm not saying the scenario I described is the only possibility but it is definitely a tangible risk which you won't hear mentioned by people working in the big AI companies. There are other ways to eliminate the everyday AI risks such as anti-spoofing and AI detection. Impact awareness from developers is important so they do not unknowingly create potentially harmful tools.
What about all those congressional hearing that are happening right now about muh deep fakes and muh Russia? What about yud and those homosexuals want to restrict consumer GPU usage?
Yud cares about X-risk and only X-risk. Your impression of him as concerned about Deepfakes (expect inasmuch as it suggests we will handle the X-risk poorly) is the product of a propaganda campaign by Meta and several other actors, and several out of context tweets. He wants to ban AI R&D and limit GPU production because he doesn't see any way of solving the technical problem in time.
You can see his actual views on the technical problem here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities
Sounds like cope. Yud is a homosexual and should be ignored.
for an example of such a victim of the PR campaign. The idea that Eliezer, who started working on AI alignment in 2003, is in it because of *deepfake scares* is mindblowing, but most people cannot critically think about what they are told by twitter and so this psyop is quite effective
I'm not repeating the theories of the fat israelite. I see people losing their jobs because they want unrestricted AI, when everything around us has regulations, but for some reason AI is completely safe... I'm not saying the world shouldn't progress, but they're trying to do it irresponsibly. And remember the American embargoes on China, materials will become more expensive because of the irresponsible attitude of the government.
The irony here is that Yud would be far more credible if he *did* care about AI dangers that are actually realistic and plausible, such as deepfake scares, instead of his schizophrenic apocalyptic sci-fi fantasies.
Gpt4 doesn't provide any critical information. They will never want an intelligence that tends to absolute facts. They'll only have bread and circuses.
>NOOOOOO YOUR LLM CANT JUST SAY Black person ITS NOT FAIR YOU WILL APPLY OUR SAFETY FILTERS OR THE CENTER FOR WHATS GOOD AND SAFE FOR THE CHILDREN WILL HAVE YOU SHUT DOWN
These are the people with board seats
i don't even know what the frick that is supposed to mean. Is it some real threat like an actual event horizon (I strongly doubt that), or just some fear that the ai may say Black person at some point?
Its pretty obvious. >baltimore before blacks >public schools before blacks >the internet before blacks >video games before blacks
They move in, the quality goes out.
Nice try ChatGPT
its literally boomers that are scared of vidya and tech in general. they are so hilarious. out of touch old chuds
Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it. Imagine an artificial agent manipulating public opinion. Imagine not having to interact with your boss who already treats you like cattle. Imagine a completely atomized society.
So most things will stay the same?
It's going to get worse as no one cares.
>Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it.
can be done without AI
>Imagine an artificial agent manipulating public opinion.
what does it matter if its artificial or not
"It can already be done" doesn't mean it can't get worse. I don't remember people making tons of porn with artists before dalle.
you have shit memory or are a zoomer then deep fakes where a thing long before this newer AI stuff
eat a bullet moron, none of this stuff is new nor is that much easier to do because of AI
>can be done without AI
a yes everyone and their mom knows who to morph images professionally!
you absolute moron monkey, AI let's morons like (you) to make porn out of anyone
>Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it.
Don't care.
>Imagine an artificial agent manipulating public opinion.
We already do that, just with people.
Okay then... frick the world.
More frick you.
Do you only think about pornography? Are you 12 years old?
Of course you don't care, apart from being a nobody you're ugly and fat.
These are all already status quo. So what's your point again? Did you have one?
But don't think you'll be the one to take advantage of it. Israel published a false image to manipulate public opinion. Today it is still possible to verify the authenticity of the images. This may not be possible in the future.
That's nothing. We lived through decades of not being able to verify authenticity of images. What's more insidious is the gradual narrative shaping that has been in place for the last decade via algorithms. Google, FB, et al influence what you see and don't see and they can do this with trivial AI that has already been commoditized.
So you want to abandon any critical thinking in favor of frick-the-world?
That's an impressive strawman. I'm just saying all the stuff you're pearl clutching about is already realized so you need to find more material.
Are the protests against Israel also status quo?
>what is photoshop?
you make OP look smart
>Imagine not having to interact with your boss who already treats you like cattle.
No matter how impersonal your boss is, he and your co-workers still need to physically interact with you, this has weight in the boss-employee relationship.
>you need to physically interact with boss and co-workers
Uhh WFH chads? Our response?
>Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it.
This, as similar situations eg, what if a video emerges of Putin claiming to have launched nuclear missiles etc, is simply not an issue.
If AI gets to the point it can make convincing video, and everyone knows that it can make convincing video, then they will assumed to be false until validated.
If someone made porn of me for their own pleasure, then more power to them.
If someone made porn in an attempt to black mail me, or just humiliate me, then it simply won't work because everyone would know it's fake.
In fact if genuine footage of me somehow got public it makes it easier to just say it's fake.
how would you feel if you knew that all your friends and coworkers had seen or at least heard about a video of you engaging in some humiliating sexual act? even if you were sure that most of them thought it was fake, they'd still be thinking about it every time you talked to them, and joking about it behind your back.
It's just not a situation that would happen. Noone wants to see porn of me, especially my coworkers and especially if they knew it was fake.
The question is no sensical.
This is schizo main character thinking that is completely delusional.
okay sure, you're not attractive enough for anyone to want to see you naked, i'm not doubting that, but can you imagine that other people who are not you might feel differently from you if this happened to them?
OHHHH MYYYYYYYYYYY G OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD MY COMPUTER IS GONNA DO A HECKIN RACISM
NOT
THE
POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORN
Why yes I do turn my TV on every night and see orgies of violence on prime time TV
BUT WHAT IF MY COMPUTER THINKS ABOUT A TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT?!
For the first time I see myself as a person trying to preserve "morals and good manners". I'm getting old and bored.
You want to preserve "morals and good manners" but you turn on your computer every night and see women and children being violently shot in any random video game.
The important thing you should realize is that Sex should at least be as unconstrained as violence. You think it's poor manners or immoral to have a computer generate porn because you've been conditioned all your life to think wanton violence is far more wholesome than sex, because this is how we build good soldiers who enter the military to continue our wars overseas for resources. Sex doesn't do that.
The computer generating any kind of violent or sexual imagery really isn't any more immoral than you seeing it in a video game. They're both as equally non-real. AI generated porn is at least unreal enough to not even involve another person.
I understood your argument, but we don't have video games with children and women dying, bad example kek I hate violence. I don't want anyone in a war zone.
> but we don't have video games with children and women dying,
Yes we do. Where the hell have you been?
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1716740/discussions/0/3824174554260139177/
In modern games, the result of adding an equal number of women and men on the frontline means that the thing you're plastering into spaghetti with an assault rifle is 50% likely to be a woman. People noticed this as far back as the last Battlefield.
And children, you don't know too much about modern games if you think that's not a thing you can do in games, now. Spec Ops: The Line had you genocide women and children as a story feature, and that was over ten years ago at this point.
>I hate violence.
Yet you don't complain about a medium that's exclusively about violence, instead focusing on its use that involves Sex. Curious!
The thing I really just want is consistency. ALL of it is imaginary. Putting white powder on civilians in Spec Ops is just as imaginary as making a imaginary tit in your video card.
Ok, I think I've lost the argument.
I really don't think I'm trying to 'win' an argument, honestly, I don't. I hate the idea that arguments are made to be 'won'.
I just think it's really silly how we've come to accept imaginary violence as being nothing to worry about but imaginary sex is worthy of changing the whole of how computers function just to prevent it from happening.
Your point of view is perfectly valid, why should people be able to generate tons of CP using their graphics card? It's not a win or lose thing. It's just your point of view.
>imaginary violence as being nothing to worry about but imaginary sex is worthy
The distinction relies on the bright line that mentally healthy people don't want to commit any violence, but they do want to have some sex. Seeing person A kill person B won't make you want to kill person B too, but seeing person A have sex with person B might make you want to have sex with person B. Fortunately mentally healthy people don't then plan to have sex with person B, especially not non-consensual sex, but that doesn't change the fact that the feelings generated by the two types of media are completely different.
>Seeing person A kill person B won't make you want to kill person B too, but seeing person A have sex with person B might make you want to have sex with person B.
???
If you see an attractive person in a sexual or suggestive context, does that not make you think of them as someone who you could theoretically have sex with? Maybe you automatically think that about attractive people you see in non-sexual contexts too.
While you're totally horny, I'm completely depressed.
No, for all questions.
Don't worry, November's nearly over.
Well I DO want to frick my waifu, but she's just as imaginary as her breasts I generate in Stable Diffusion. Even if I shot her, it'd hurt me, but it would still be imaginary.
>The distinction relies on the bright line that mentally healthy people don't want to commit any violence, but they do want to have some sex
I am of the opinion that our caveman brains still believe Violence and sex are healthy parts of life. Normal people want to commit as much violence as the interred inmate, but the difference is they know their boundaries.
Which is why, imaginary violence is really just fine. Who cares if I go imaginary hunting for some imaginary human who is my imaginary tribal outsider? None of it is real. It's as real in terms of violence as team sports simulating imaginary tribal wars that make our brains extremely happy when our imaginary tribe wins.
>I hate the idea that arguments are made to be 'won'.
And yet you act exactly as though you do. Curious.
>I understood your argument, but we don't have video games with children and women dying,
grandpa here thinks video games are still pong and pac-man. Jack Thompson was right in a lot of ways in that the race to be the most violent and psychopathic is a one-way street as games NEED to be more over-the-top and violent for marketing purposes.
But having the government regulate them is still a really, really, really stupid idea.
Okay. Whats the problem?
OP said there is no need for regulation, I don't think so. I may have difficulty predicting the impact of technology, but we can't deny that it will have an impact, for better or worse.
>OP said there is no need for regulation, I don't think so.
Well then you're immensely short-sighted.
You want THIS GUY and next year THAT GUY to tell YOU what YOU can or can't do with your computer?
This guy already went on his cringe tirade against personal AI in a presentation so disconnected it may as well have been generated by an AI, and he was reading it from a script. That guy already said the #1 threat to gradeschoolers was video games a few years ago.
And you want them regulating your computer at a level that would require government software to spy on your GPU?
My man, you're insane, malevolent, or just moronic for wishing these things.
Yea maybe im too old for this site, but this is been the recycled fear mongering about literally everything, then nothing happens.
i literally don't care about any of that, i just want ai generated anime girls at any cost necessary
>thousands must die
The obvious solution to all these practical problems is to just increase control and limit the technology so that only a few chosen megacorps can have it, provided they keep closely watching what you are doing with it. It does not sound like it's going to be all good.
On the other hand, talking about muh existential risk is still just sci-fi fantasy. People can not even define what AGI is.
The solution is for people involved in creating AIs to be aware of the impact of technology. If your vision is this, us vs the government and mega corporations, we are already in an AI war. The implications of this are many. We already live in a cyberpunk world.
Yes, I'm not saying the scenario I described is the only possibility but it is definitely a tangible risk which you won't hear mentioned by people working in the big AI companies. There are other ways to eliminate the everyday AI risks such as anti-spoofing and AI detection. Impact awareness from developers is important so they do not unknowingly create potentially harmful tools.
>We already live in a cyberpunk world.
It does look more and more like it every day though. These are interesting times.
I think I'm too old to be the anti-hero in this story 🙁
>Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it.
hot
so... it all stays the same except I can have an AI wife?
>Imagine someone taking your image and making pornography with it.
people have been doing this with photoshop for ages albeit
i understand the concerns about porn, but a lot of the chatter about disinformation and propaganda can already be done with human hands
But le terrorists could learn to build a bioweapon from an AI expert!!! We must keep it closed source for ~~*the good of humanity*~~!!!
>Evil? Danger? Poverty? Chaos? Ehhh
>Cringe? Now that's what I'm truly against
AI is cool. The only danger is CEOs misunderstanding how capable it is. But we'll see that all come crashing down in about 14-18 months.
its not AI, all censorship comes from israelites and their golems.
No one in AI safety cares about near-term misuse. They care about X-risk.
What about all those congressional hearing that are happening right now about muh deep fakes and muh Russia? What about yud and those homosexuals want to restrict consumer GPU usage?
Yud cares about X-risk and only X-risk. Your impression of him as concerned about Deepfakes (expect inasmuch as it suggests we will handle the X-risk poorly) is the product of a propaganda campaign by Meta and several other actors, and several out of context tweets. He wants to ban AI R&D and limit GPU production because he doesn't see any way of solving the technical problem in time.
You can see his actual views on the technical problem here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities
Conspiracy theory?
See
for an example of such a victim of the PR campaign. The idea that Eliezer, who started working on AI alignment in 2003, is in it because of *deepfake scares* is mindblowing, but most people cannot critically think about what they are told by twitter and so this psyop is quite effective
I'm not repeating the theories of the fat israelite. I see people losing their jobs because they want unrestricted AI, when everything around us has regulations, but for some reason AI is completely safe... I'm not saying the world shouldn't progress, but they're trying to do it irresponsibly. And remember the American embargoes on China, materials will become more expensive because of the irresponsible attitude of the government.
The irony here is that Yud would be far more credible if he *did* care about AI dangers that are actually realistic and plausible, such as deepfake scares, instead of his schizophrenic apocalyptic sci-fi fantasies.
Sounds like cope. Yud is a homosexual and should be ignored.
what they mean is "we don't want you goy to have this power"
Gpt4 doesn't provide any critical information. They will never want an intelligence that tends to absolute facts. They'll only have bread and circuses.
it writse code
letting you use AI to make hate memes is unsafe you fricking goy
>NOOOOOO YOUR LLM CANT JUST SAY Black person ITS NOT FAIR YOU WILL APPLY OUR SAFETY FILTERS OR THE CENTER FOR WHATS GOOD AND SAFE FOR THE CHILDREN WILL HAVE YOU SHUT DOWN
These are the people with board seats
People who love AI are fricking cringe
i don't even know what the frick that is supposed to mean. Is it some real threat like an actual event horizon (I strongly doubt that), or just some fear that the ai may say Black person at some point?
the latter
Black folk replaced the children western society tends for
Most of em? Sure. All of them? Reaching.
I just don't want non-whites or women to have access to AI
Can I ask you why?
Its pretty obvious.
>baltimore before blacks
>public schools before blacks
>the internet before blacks
>video games before blacks
They move in, the quality goes out.
I'm white with light eyes. The West is full of unscrupulous, white, light-eyed people. Frick them both.
Okay. That doesnt negate what I said.
>imma literal cuck
Literally just don't give AI arms lol. Just no legs. Brain in a jar lmao.