On the other hand somebody can say "if we don't, then others will". So regulate and ban the technology, then.

When has that ever worked? What banned technology is conceived of but not developed because some government entity said not to?

I think the "if we don't, then others will" is part of the natural progression of technology. Whatever the next logical step of development is, that's where development efforts will flow. Some might not want to go there, but some will. Someone banning it will likely only fan the flames and drive more interest into the space - ala the "Streisand Effect".

When the US government (et al) labeled certain numbers "illegal" because they could be used to break DRM or certain encryption types, academia and hackers alike openly mocked the notion. T-shirts, stickers, and websites sprung up further spreading this "illegal" knowledge. People who had no idea about how a number could be so "dangerous" suddenly wanted to know. By telling people they can't know or do something will absolutely drive people toward that knowledge.

The hacker mentality often answers the question "why?" with "because I can". Saying you cannot only encourages more to jump in.

I was thinking about throwing a wrench to the machine while saying "ban it" to make it stutter, like breaking the chain of obedience in Milgram Experiment, or like the woman who walks up to Zimbardo and stops The Prison Experiment (see his TED talk).

Because, as a hacker and programmer, I believe that we have ethical obligations, and this "We're doing something amazing, we need no permission" stance in these communities genuinely worry me.

Technology is not only technology, it affects people's lives. Anything which can damage it beyond a certain point by exploiting human nature is in the same category for me.

It's like banning Iliad, because it describes troyan horse.

What I say is, this is a double-use technology and dangerous beyond a certain point, so it might need to be regulated or banned at the end of the day.

In an ideal world, we shouldn't need this, but we don't live that ideal world.

For example, I can't independently develop an amateur rocket which can land to an area of my choosing by the means of actively directing itself, beyond a certain accuracy and precision. Because it'll be a homing missile. On the same essence I can say that this technology can be used to damage other people.

Or, I can't get some enriched uranium to build myself a small, teapot sized reactor to power my house during power outages.

Can we say that we're censoring research in this areas too, because they're low security things?

This is same with latest A.I. developments. However I'm a bit busy to open these cans today.

> Untrusted data is a problem of stupidity in comparison.

In the past, wrong data showed itself because of a lack of coherency. With the advanced misinformation operations, it almost have became an alternative reality game. A.I. today allows us to generate convincing lies at the push of a button. I can fathom what kind of misinformation bubbles can be built with technology like that.

These technologies are attacking to lowest level instincts of humans, which ones we deem utterly reliable for thousands of years. They are the same level with the manipulative algorithms in my mind. I put these into dangerous and harmful category.

This is not a case of stupidity. This is plain old, and very dangerous kind of, manipulation.

Downplaying this is not wise.

That works too, like we accept the algorithms which tie people to screens and used to spread misinformation and manipulate the masses.

> We all know what this is used for and its tasteless at best.

Yeah, like interview fraud, misinformation campaigns and what not. These are tasteless, but not harmless.

At least putting a ban on it will make people think, I hope.

I'm not sure how I feel about "ban it" -- I can argue that either way -- but I do think that arguments that banning something is pointless because people will do it anyway are misguided.

Regulations don't eliminate the effects of bad actors, but they do reduce the number and severity of them.

Except for criminals and CIA.

I'm not convinced this represents "progress". That aside, the goal of resisting it isn't to allow you to become complacent some day. The goal is to avoid being harmed.

How many generations did it take for society to adapt to the industrial revolution? What were the spasms which occurred during that period?

As for deepfakes, we know before we even begin that it breaks (utterly moots) social norms about identity, trust, reputation.

How many people are going to die while societies adapt?

Is that price acceptable for the benefit of more amusing viral videos on TikTok?