[bronz]

> We are aware that some researchers have the technical capacity to reproduce and open source our results. We believe our release strategy limits the initial set of organizations who may choose to do this, and gives the AI community more time to have a discussion about the implications of such systems.

i wish people would stop pretending that there is some good way to bring this technology into existence. yes, its nice to try and let the good guys use it first but its just irrelevant in the long-term. ultimately the result is going to be total proliferation of this technology in all areas where it has utility, and it will be used to maximum extent in every application it is suitable for, including the really bad ones. the roll-out will make the transition smoother but it wont change whats actually important: the end result on the lives of our grandchildren.

growing up around rapidly advancing technology, i thought of technology as a double-edged sword: it cuts equally in both directions. but after thinking about it for a long time, i now believe that, in relation to human well-being, the presence of a given technology or combination of technologies can be a net positive or a net negative as well as neither. we need to think more carefully before letting these genies out of their bottles.

this is not an example that i think will be very negative, but its very powerful and unexpected for me at least. the next powerful and unexpected thing may not be benign. banning development of these kinds of technologies should not be off the table.

after reading this: https://blog.openai.com/better-language-models/#sample8 and browsing reddit for a while, i have realized that from now on i cannot assume human origin for 90% of the comments i read on reddit. this is insane.

[ancarda]

>i have realized that from now on i cannot trust 90% of the comments i read on reddit. this is insane.

I hate to be cynical here but I'm glad this has made you realize something that's been true since the Internet started; you shouldn't trust what's written on any forum! Be skeptical.

[chrisco255]

I agree with being skeptical but there is a point where rational skepticism just turns into pure cynicism and that's not productive.

Also, with the advances in deep fakes and synthetic video...how long before you can't trust video evidence either?

[stef25]

Got news for you! It's already possible to produce fairly accurate fake video of people saying things, in their own voice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ54GDm1eL0

[ancarda]

Hmm, video evidence may be trustworthy - eg. video from a CCTV system. Perhaps it could be written onto some write-once, tamper resistant format? Not sure how that would look.

I suppose one place to start thinking about this would be photos. Are photos admissible evidence or do courts only allow negatives? Photos have been modified for a very long time. This is probably the most famous example: https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/52af668569bedd3b2643d...

But yes, I am far more worried about how much more effective fake news will be once they start coming with actual videos.

[ohtwenty]

Cctv on blockchain?

[njharman]

How long? Several years ago. Videos have been faked forever. There’s been all sorts of optical illusions, forced perspective, and special effects for 100 years.

You shouldn’t trust any single source. Only a preponderance. Even then be open to skeptics

[bronz]

i meant that i cant trust whether or not it was written by a human, not whether or not i can trust the correctness of the comment. edited for clarity.

[dwaltrip]

Trust and skepticism aren't binary.

[ancarda]

Interesting, would you elaborate? Do you perhaps mean that even if you do trust someone, you should still be skeptical?

[dwaltrip]

Someone's skepticism, knowledge, and careful assessment might lead them to think that a forum post has a X% of being machine generated (as one example scenario). There are big differences between values of 0.1%, 1%, 10%, 50%, 90%, etc, and the resulting impact of the who are involved in that system.

Because of this, it isn't helpful to say, "Oh you should always be skeptical! It doesn't matter if things have changed significantly such that we have more reason to be skeptical now."

[ancarda]

That makes sense, thank you!

[mamcx]

"Trust, but verify"

[stef25]

> i have realized that from now on i cannot assume human origin for 90% of the comments i read on reddit. this is insane.

Ever since Photoshop got good (20+ years now?) we haven't been able to assume that images are "real" either and things turned out fine. We'll have to learn to be skeptical.

Anyway Reddit already has dedicated bots (account names ending in "SS") posting and commenting on their own content, mostly hilarious but sometimes fairly "real" checkout /r/SubredditSimMeta

https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditSimulator/comments/3g9ioz/...

[yarg]

I personally have huge concerns regarding the public global distribution of what is clearly a weapons grade technology. Authoritarian countries are already heavily invested in utilising these technologies for the purposes of suppressing the wills of their people.

However, there is nothing that will stop them from further developing these technologies even without access to the research from more liberal nations.

To halt development is to drop out of an arms race that cannot afford to be lost.

[Mirioron]

>and browsing reddit for a while, i have realized that from now on i cannot assume human origin for 90% of the comments i read on reddit. this is insane.

I wonder if eventually we'll have sites like reddit or forums that require you to demonstrate who you are before joining. Eg they require a photo of you and your passport. The site wouldn't use that information for anything, but this would reasonably guarantee that there's a real identity behind every poster.