Technology

59436 readers

3604 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

110

An AI startup made a hyperrealistic deepfake of me that’s so good it’s scary (www.technologyreview.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Stopthatgirl7@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Thanks to rapid advancements in generative AI and a glut of training data created by human actors that has been fed into its AI model, Synthesia has been able to produce avatars that are indeed more humanlike and more expressive than their predecessors. The digital clones are better able to match their reactions and intonation to the sentiment of their scripts—acting more upbeat when talking about happy things, for instance, and more serious or sad when talking about unpleasant things. They also do a better job matching facial expressions—the tiny movements that can speak for us without words.

But this technological progress also signals a much larger social and cultural shift. Increasingly, so much of what we see on our screens is generated (or at least tinkered with) by AI, and it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish what is real from what is not. This threatens our trust in everything we see, which could have very real, very dangerous consequences.

“I think we might just have to say goodbye to finding out about the truth in a quick way,” says Sandra Wachter, a professor at the Oxford Internet Institute, who researches the legal and ethical implications of AI. “The idea that you can just quickly Google something and know what’s fact and what’s fiction—I don’t think it works like that anymore.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I don't understand all that you're saying, but it seems you're basing your argument off the incorrect assumption that free will exists.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Ah, Lemmy...

"I don't understand what you're talking about, but you're wrong."

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Lol, I see how you could see it that way. I meant rather that I thought I did understand the part where you claimed free will existed, but not the argument based off that.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

While Superderminism is a valid solution to both Bell's paradox and this result, it isn't a factor in the Frauchiger-Renner paradox so there must be something else going on at very least in addition to it (which then complies less with Occam's razor).

And it would be pretty superfluous for our universe to behave the way it does around interactions and measurements if free will didn't exist.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

incorrect assumption that free will exists.

Actually free will does exist, unless you define it by some ridiculous standard that I want to fly but I can't.
You have free will to pursue your survival and best interests, obviously within the limitations of our physical body.

The way this is possible within a physical construct that must obey physical laws, is that consciousness exist within a virtual reality constructed within that physical construct by our brains. And is thus not directly tied to the physical realm, but instead indirectly. Which makes room for things like learning, memory, consciousness and free will.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's actually the people who try to reconcile free will and a deterministic universe who make the ridiculous arguments, such as compatibilism, which basically just redefines free will. If free will were to be true, you have to have the ability to have acted differently.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It’s actually the people who try to reconcile free will and a deterministic universe

The universe is not deterministic, but that's completely irrelevant. The argument of free will does not rely on the lack of determinism of quantum mechanics. That was a philosophical argument once, but it doesn't actually change anything.

If free will were to be true, you have to have the ability to have acted differently.

And how will you determine the existence or lack thereof, of the ability to act differently?
I'd say we very probably have this ability, since we often reacts differently in similar situations. Ergo by your own standard, your conclusion is wrong.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You have to have acted differently at that time in that situation, not at another time in a different situation.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

That's an impossible standard, you can't act "differently" when you have already acted. That would mean you should be able to make two actions at the same time, It doesn't make the tiniest bit of sense, and even if we could, it wouldn't either prove or disprove free will.
But you do have free will to choose your actions, only limited by your physique and kognitive ability. There's a reason everybody has that feeling, and that is it is true.

The idea that we do NOT have free will, is pure speculation based on arguments from ignorance. It boils down to: "I don't understand how free will is possible given the physical reality as we understand it". But just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean others don't either.

The reason that it's possible seems to me to be that our mind that exist in out brain, is a virtual representation of reality, which means there is an abstraction layer between consciousness and the physical brain.
This is the reason we can understand abstractions at all, which in itself proves that our minds can exceed what is possible in physical reality.
We can think of a waterfall going up, despite that is impossible in reality. We can imagine reverse causality/entropy despite it's improbable.
This is only possible because we have a consciousness with free will that allow us those things, way beyond what is physical reality.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And how will you determine the existence or lack thereof, of the ability to act differently?

You didn't answer that. Probably because that's impossible.