First. I don’t think ControlAI has run campaigns that were misleading on the effects of deepfakes.
The campaign ControlAI ran (https://controlai.com/deepfakes) seems misleading to me, in the sense that it’s warning of deepfakes being a much bigger deal than they are, doing the standard misleading persuasion textbook by citing extremely cherry-picked statistics, and generally just dressing up everything in vibes without making any arguments.
My guess is you also made it in bad faith as I would be surprised if you actually thought deepfakes were super bad, but instead mostly are working on this for slowing down AI reasons (and if not, I would be happy to try to convince you that in the absence of x-risk, substantially regulating AI for deepfake reasons would be a really bad idea and obviously doesn’t pass cost-benefit analyses).
generally just dressing up everything in vibes without making any arguments.
Citing the second card on the page you linked, that you can see by scrolling down once:
Deepfakes can steal your face, your voice, and your identity.
They are often used to create sexually abusive material, commit fraud, and harass individuals.
Anyone with internet access can make a deepfake of whoever they want.
All they need is one photo of you or a 10 second voice clip.
This page is part of a public campaign, so it’s not written in LessWrong English. My attempt to translate:
Deepfakes can greatly facilitate identity theft and scams compared to what could be done previously.
Deepfakes can be used to make porn that features people who didn’t give their consent (and just to be clear, the majority of people consider this as extremely morally abhorrent and consider this a moral priority, esp. if there was no x-risk or if they are not aware of x-risks)
It is so easy to make deepfakes that it’s only a matter of time until they become ubiquitous, once models that can output deepfakes are made publicly available.
You are vulnerable even if you’re not a public figure / don’t post a lot of content online.
The page does go on to make a few more arguments, that I don’t have time to point out now. These arguments are clearly spelled out near the top of the page.
We have each other on Signal, and you can DM me on LW. I don’t think you ever sent me a case for either of your points, nor had someone follow through me. So by default, I don’t care much for it.
I also think you are confused about how campaigns work. There is a campaign page (which you link), and usually acts the home page. If you want the arguments, you have to go on the report page ( https://controlai.com/deepfakes/deepfakes-policy#report )
To your points:
in the sense that it’s warning of deepfakes being a much bigger deal than they are
How big of a deal do you think we think they are? How big of a deal do you think we made them to be, based on which elements from our copy?
If there’s a large gap there, I can understand why you would think that we were misleading.
If nah, I think you just feel bad about our campaign. (For other reasons, which may independently be good or bad.) But fwiw, in general, I do not care much for “I indirectly made Habryka feel bad online” or “I disagree with Habryka”, given that we are not friends nor regular intellectual sparring partners.
I would be happy to try to convince you that in the absence of x-risk, substantially regulating AI for deepfake reasons would be a really bad idea and obviously doesn’t pass cost-benefit analyses
Please do.
Given that you have not written this case or even shared it with me, I have no idea why you think that I would be convinced by it, given that I likely spent more time on this than you did.
It may have been better to do it as we were campaigning on DeepFakes rather than now, but alas. I would still be interested though: I have other relevant views correlated with it.
David and Oli are your allies. They’re endeavoring to help you see yourself and the world more clearly. The tone of your replies here seems to indicate that you may have lost sight of that.
The campaign ControlAI ran (https://controlai.com/deepfakes) seems misleading to me, in the sense that it’s warning of deepfakes being a much bigger deal than they are, doing the standard misleading persuasion textbook by citing extremely cherry-picked statistics, and generally just dressing up everything in vibes without making any arguments.
My guess is you also made it in bad faith as I would be surprised if you actually thought deepfakes were super bad, but instead mostly are working on this for slowing down AI reasons (and if not, I would be happy to try to convince you that in the absence of x-risk, substantially regulating AI for deepfake reasons would be a really bad idea and obviously doesn’t pass cost-benefit analyses).
Citing the second card on the page you linked, that you can see by scrolling down once:
This page is part of a public campaign, so it’s not written in LessWrong English. My attempt to translate:
The page does go on to make a few more arguments, that I don’t have time to point out now. These arguments are clearly spelled out near the top of the page.
We have each other on Signal, and you can DM me on LW. I don’t think you ever sent me a case for either of your points, nor had someone follow through me. So by default, I don’t care much for it.
I also think you are confused about how campaigns work. There is a campaign page (which you link), and usually acts the home page. If you want the arguments, you have to go on the report page ( https://controlai.com/deepfakes/deepfakes-policy#report )
To your points:
How big of a deal do you think we think they are?
How big of a deal do you think we made them to be, based on which elements from our copy?
If there’s a large gap there, I can understand why you would think that we were misleading.
If nah, I think you just feel bad about our campaign. (For other reasons, which may independently be good or bad.)
But fwiw, in general, I do not care much for “I indirectly made Habryka feel bad online” or “I disagree with Habryka”, given that we are not friends nor regular intellectual sparring partners.
Please do.
Given that you have not written this case or even shared it with me, I have no idea why you think that I would be convinced by it, given that I likely spent more time on this than you did.
It may have been better to do it as we were campaigning on DeepFakes rather than now, but alas. I would still be interested though: I have other relevant views correlated with it.
David and Oli are your allies. They’re endeavoring to help you see yourself and the world more clearly. The tone of your replies here seems to indicate that you may have lost sight of that.