Here's a question. Suppose a corporation made its money off a particular product. And suppose the corporation's own scientists discovered that this product caused major harm. How would the corporation respond, among three choices
1) Stop making and selling the product, and support its being banned.
2) Continue to sell the product, but with a clear description of the harm.
3) Engage in a campaign to fool everyone into believing it is not harmful.
The sextortion Haidt mentions is made infinitely easier with AI image generation.
What were seeing is exploiters deep fake an image of their target and then use this as leverage against them. Unfortunately, not every kids home life is in a position where a kid can go to their parents and receive support if they're in such a situation.
Here's a question. Suppose a corporation made its money off a particular product. And suppose the corporation's own scientists discovered that this product caused major harm. How would the corporation respond, among three choices
The sextortion Haidt mentions is made infinitely easier with AI image generation.
What were seeing is exploiters deep fake an image of their target and then use this as leverage against them. Unfortunately, not every kids home life is in a position where a kid can go to their parents and receive support if they're in such a situation.
Funny this should come out at the same time as another study suggesting there's no association.
This is also available as the podcast “Hard Fork” which is usually not paywalled. Apple Podcast. (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hard-fork/id1528594034...)
Anyone have a non-paywalled mirror?
https://archive.is/OUbbU