I don't think audio, image or video generation should exist. I haven't seen enough positive applications to justify the amount of harm these tools are being used to cause.

▲ userbinator 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What "harm"?

The only "harm" is from the authoritarians wanting to ensure only they have the means to produce propaganda for the masses.

Now the masses can amplify their own voices instead.

▲ chrysoprace 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

While I generally think it's balanced against a lot of negative applications (misinformation, deepfakes, etc.), there are some good applications. I think regulation just hasn't sufficiently caught up with the harm they can cause.

To give a good use case (audio generation specifically), the 2002 game Morrowind has had a resurgence lately and it's a really great game, but it lacks fully voiced lines for dialogue. A community project called Voices of Vvardenfell uses ElevenAI to generate voice lines from the voiced lines that do exist in the game. They don't take away jobs from artists because it was a monumental (unpaid) undertaking from community volunteers to do this before (there was such a big project but it was abandoned last I saw).

So as with any emerging technologies, I think it just needs to be properly regulated.

▲ argentinian 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Now they cause harm because there's people that may believe a fake video is real. But people is developing skepticism about what they see in videos and learning to think that they may be generated, before taking them as true.

What kind of harms do you have in mind?

▲ Nition 3 hours ago | parent [-]

No longer being able to tell whether any image or video is real due to the extreme ease of creating realistic fakes, is itself a harm.

▲ jay_kyburz 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It might actually be helpful to push through and out to the other side.

Think about how many completely fake videos are going to be flying around for the next election. Nobody is going to believe anything the see online.

What is the the next stage, where the only things you believe are things you see with your own eyes.

▲ Barbing 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>things you see with your own eyes

Oh I wouldn't trust myself!

  In his study, "Nearly 2,000 witnesses can be wrong", Buckhout performed an experiment with 2,145 at-home viewers of a popular news broadcast. The television network played a 13-second clip of a mock robbery, produced by Buckhout. ... The people at home could call a number on their screen to report which suspect they believed was the perpetrator. The perpetrator was suspect number 2. ... Approximately equal contingents of participants chose suspects 1, 2, or 5, while the largest group of participants, about 25 percent, said they believed the perpetrator was not in the lineup. Even police precincts called in and reported the wrong man as the one they believed committed the crime.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony#Reliabili...

Also-mentioned concepts: misinformation effect, source misattribution, confirmation bias.

▲ vitalyan8184 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲ p-e-w 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For everything that exists, there are people who think it shouldn’t exist. Fortunately, society doesn’t ban everything that disagrees with some people, and even more fortunately, we now live in a multipolar world where what is available doesn’t depend on the whims of a single pseudo-moralistic government.

▲ E-Reverance 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I haven't seen enough positive applications

If in the future they can create a reward model to aid with creating super human levels of appeal tailored to me, I would considered it one of the best technologies ever made. I'm not sentimental about the source, pretty videos and pictures make me happy