| > Do you think that's an appropriate response? No because it is not going to make much difference. > Sorry, but I still see this as kneejerk reactions to spectacularly unlikely scenarios of "bad things happening" being proposed and regulated by people who don't care about reducing other people's freedom because it won't affect them personally. Fully agreed on that one. > I'm still unsure what you're suggesting "shouldn't be allowed" here? This software has a ton of bad use possibilities, I just threw out the first one that I could think of, there are a whole raft of others. > Open sourcing computer vision projects? Publishing on github? No, it's inevitable. But there is currently no framework on how to deal with these things. Just because you can doesn't always mean that you should. There are a ton of things I could do that are legal but that does not mean that all those things have a net-positive effect on the society we live in and I think that the ability to build these systems comes with some responsibility. > Me? I'm 100% for publishing this(and similar) projects - because the tech is already out there and being used. Pretty much every towtruck and repo man has had this tech running for 5+ years, and almost nobody knows. Yes, but they are limited in quantity and enough of a quantitative change is a qualitative change. > (I know, lets ban _ideas!_... (Sorry, that's way snarkier than intended...)) I think I beat you to that: https://twitter.com/jmattheij/status/670367390828535808 |