[lewhoo]

> Generative AI poses no unique threat;

While the threat isn't unique the magnitude of the threat is. This is why you can't argue in court the threat of a car crash is nothing unique even when you're speeding vs driving within limit.

[sausse]

Sure, if you presume organic propaganda is analogous to the level of danger driving within limit.

But a car going into a stroller at 150mph versus 200mph is negligible.

The democratization of generative AI would increase the number of bad agents, but with it would come a better awareness of their tactics; perhaps we push less strollers into the intersections known for drag racing.

[lewhoo]

> But a car going into a stroller at 150mph versus 200mph is negligible.

I guess when you distort every argument to an absurd you can claim you're right.

> but with it would come a better awareness of their tactics

I don't follow. Are you saying new and more sophisticated ways to scam people are actually good because we have a unique chance to know how they work ?

[sausse]

It’s not absurd. The bottleneck for additional predation is not the available toolkit, else we’d see a more obvious correlation between a society’s resource endowment and its callousness.

Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness.

AI isn’t posed to shift the balance of MFA versus phishers in a way that can’t be meaningfully corrected in the short and long term, so using “scamming” as a means to oppose disseminating tech feels reductive at best.

[lewhoo]

> It’s not absurd.

It is, because I wasn't directly comparing AI to traffic but only reaching for an example to illustrate how irrelevant is the case whether the threat is something completely unique or not.

> Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness.

Dismissing it as "meh, not new" is plain silliness.

> AI isn’t posed to shift the balance of MFA versus phishers in a way that can’t be meaningfully corrected

What on Earth makes you think that ? The beautiful way we're handling scams right now ? If you think it's irrelevant that phishing via phone call can now or soon be fully automated and the attack may even be conducted using a copy of someone's voice - well, we won't get anywhere here.

[sausse]

It’s already automated, you don’t need AI/ML to perform mass-phishing attempts. LDo you think there’s someone manually-dialing you every time you get a spam call?

The way we mitigate scams today definitely encourages me; the existence of victims does not imply the failure or inadequacy of safeguards keeping up with technology.

While AI stokes the imagination, it’s not so inspiring that I can make the argument in my head for you about why humanity’s better off with access to these tools being kept in the hands of corporations that repeatedly get sued for placing profits over public welfare.

[lewhoo]

> It’s already automated, you don’t need AI/ML to perform mass-phishing attempts. LDo you think there’s someone manually-dialing you every time you get a spam call?

Ok, now you're being just stubborn. No, no one is manually dialing your number but as soon as the scammer knows you've answered you get to talk to a human who tries to convince you to install a "safety" app for your bank or something. THAT part isn't automated, but it may as well be, which means phishing calls and scams can potentially be done with a multiplication factor of hundreds, maybe thousands - limited only by scammer infrastructure.

[FrontierProject]

You underestimate the amount of people who don't at all care whether or not their stroller goes splat as long as they're on asphalt they like the feel of.