6 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 25.0 ms ] thread
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how deepfakes (of voices and faces) are anything other than a dangerous weapon that a tiny group of people will profit from.

There are no ethical use cases for these things other than resurrecting dead celebrities (which is itself morally fraught).

Transferable knowledge? We can all agree that nuclear weapons are a bad thing but much of today's Nuclear medicine and radiotherapy probably would not have matured without that primary defense funded research.
That's a pretty good answer, but it's only verifiable in retrospect. So far, we've seen *NNs used for bad things and utterly fail at good things (like increasing the accuracy of reading radiographs).
This doesn't feel so futuristic anymore:

T-800, speaking to John Connor in normal voice: "What's the dog's name?"

John Connor: "Max."

T-800, impersonating John, on the phone with T-1000: "Hey Janelle, what's wrong with Wolfie? I can hear him barking. Is he all right?"

T-1000, impersonating John's foster mother, Janelle: "Wolfie's fine, honey. Wolfie's just fine. Where are you?"

T-800 hangs up the phone and says to John in normal voice: "Your foster parents are dead."

There's already people being scammed because they receive phone calls using a family member's voice and spoofed number.
Voice recognition seems like a terrible verification solution, especially over a low quality phone connection. I'm shocked at the growing frequency of these kinds of stories exposing that sensitive information is protected using it.