I... hm. Isn't this really just the argument for the immorality of all porn and sex work? Heck, even more broadly, all of society can be tarred with this brush, as it's all part of a system that...
I... hm.
... the Deepfake phenomenon can be considered morally impermissible on the basis of its role in gender inequality. The consumption of Deepfakes is undeniably a highly gendered phenomenon, and arguably plays a role in the social degradation of women in society. Sexual fantasies are not.
Isn't this really just the argument for the immorality of all porn and sex work? Heck, even more broadly, all of society can be tarred with this brush, as it's all part of a system that supports and continues the degradation of all sorts of minorities. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, really. It's just... am I misreading it? It feels like a conclusion of "deepfakes are bad because society is bad" is really facile, but that's what I'm getting.
I also don’t really see how this argument doesn’t implicate sexual fantasies. Moreover, I would think men would be equally, if not more put off by deep fake porn being made of them so it’s pretty...
I also don’t really see how this argument doesn’t implicate sexual fantasies. Moreover, I would think men would be equally, if not more put off by deep fake porn being made of them so it’s pretty clear that it’s not the macro view that prompts people’s intuitive revulsion to it.
Predominantly doesn’t mean “exclusively,” though. And even if it’s consumed by men that doesn’t mean it’s only women who are the subjects. What’s more, all of that is true of regular old porn too....
Predominantly doesn’t mean “exclusively,” though. And even if it’s consumed by men that doesn’t mean it’s only women who are the subjects. What’s more, all of that is true of regular old porn too.
Frankly I don’t think this author really understands how moral philosophy generally works. It’s not coming up with a legalistic definition to cover something you think is bad, it’s investigating why the thing feels like it’s bad and what that says about the broader moral truths insofar as we can posit they exist. He doesn’t seem to be looking into any aspect of the subjective experience of deepfakes feeling violating. Nobody is feeling violated by them because of some statistical notion around the gender balance of who is producing or consuming it. And men can also feel violated by it in ways the author doesn’t seem to understand or respect in the slightest.
That is an incredibly uncharitable read. The article is focused on disparities for a good reason but it doesn't even introduce gender until a decent portion of the way through and in the context...
He doesn’t seem to be looking into any aspect of the subjective experience of deepfakes feeling violating. Nobody is feeling violated by them because of some statistical notion around the gender balance of who is producing or consuming it. And men can also feel violated by it in ways the author doesn’t seem to understand or respect in the slightest.
That is an incredibly uncharitable read. The article is focused on disparities for a good reason but it doesn't even introduce gender until a decent portion of the way through and in the context of the problem as it currently exists.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're claiming here - is there a specific way in which men can feel violated by it that is not presented or is misunderstood in the paper? Keep in mind that even in the section which is heavily gendered, the author uses abstractions such as "A" and "B" referring to people for which gender is not specified.
Having only skimmed the article, there's a chance that there might be some kind of disconnect in the point the article gets across as opposed to the conclusion, but seems to suggest that the...
Having only skimmed the article, there's a chance that there might be some kind of disconnect in the point the article gets across as opposed to the conclusion, but
"...as isolated cases unrelated to other processes in society—there is no reason why Deepfakes should be deemed more morally impermissible than sexual fantasies. However, when the dilemma is considered on a low LoA—i.e., when we consider the truly morally relevant information—the Deepfake phenomenon can be considered morally impermissible on the basis of its role in gender inequality."
seems to suggest that the author doesn't view deepfakes as unethical or immoral in and of themselves, but because of, well, its role in gender inequality. Maybe I just misinterpreted your comment, though.
I believe the author is arguing at the highest LoA at which it is impermissible. Much in the same way that the idea that murder can be argued against at a very high level LoA, the thrust of the...
I believe the author is arguing at the highest LoA at which it is impermissible. Much in the same way that the idea that murder can be argued against at a very high level LoA, the thrust of the article is about the ways in which we can identify ethical problems at the highest level possible. In the case of sexism, gender norms, and other societal level LoAs, there's a clear negative consequence and argument against deep faked porn.
However, the author spends time explaining that LoAs can exist on any level and makes sure to give examples of how this can run infinitesimally small. The idea that deepfakes cannot be found to be unethical or immoral at a different level for different people seems to ignore the LoA framework as outlined. To spend the article talking about every possible minute level of LoA in which it would be unethical seems like a fruitless endeavor.
Fair enough. I suppose I like the general theory of Levels of Abstraction as a method of determining the morality of a situation, don't mind its application to the question of deepfakes, and feel...
Fair enough. I suppose I like the general theory of Levels of Abstraction as a method of determining the morality of a situation, don't mind its application to the question of deepfakes, and feel like this paper in particular was barely dipping its toe in the murky waters of the situation.
Although to most people, Deepfake Pornography is intuitively unethical, it seems difficult to justify this intuition without simultaneously condemning other actions that we do not ordinarily find morally objectionable, such as sexual fantasies. In the present article, I refer to this contradiction as the pervert’s dilemma.
I haven't yet read the rest of the article, so maybe this is addressed, but I'd say that the very clear difference between unethical activity and the ethical activity is that you can share and...
I haven't yet read the rest of the article, so maybe this is addressed, but I'd say that the very clear difference between unethical activity and the ethical activity is that you can share and decieve people with the product of the unethical one, and can only share the description for the ethical one.
The author maintains that even were it impossible to share the deepfake product, our moral intuitions would still be conflicted compared to an organic fantasy. Only half-way through myself but it...
The author maintains that even were it impossible to share the deepfake product, our moral intuitions would still be conflicted compared to an organic fantasy.
Only half-way through myself but it reads fairly well. It's the most scholarly address of Deepfakes (from an admittedly narrow perspective) that I've seen floatin around.
Using moral intuitions always feels a little shaky (and often breaks down on non-WEIRD populations), especially when introducing conditions that might not feel plausible, such as: I don't think...
Using moral intuitions always feels a little shaky (and often breaks down on non-WEIRD populations), especially when introducing conditions that might not feel plausible, such as:
The technology used by B guarantees that (i) A can never find out about the pornographic content in which A’s face is starring; and (ii) it is impossible to distribute the content to anyone else
I don't think such a technology is possible, and I think that factors in to whatever intuition I have when considering it.
Why does the ability to make it unethical? Surely that would be unethical if you made the choice to exercise that ability? (note this obviously doesn't apply to the release of tool with which to...
Why does the ability to make it unethical? Surely that would be unethical if you made the choice to exercise that ability?
(note this obviously doesn't apply to the release of tool with which to do it, just an individual privately using already existing tools)
So computer files can be copied easily, stolen through hacks, and even sometimes recovered after being deleted. When a person takes sexual photos of themselves, hopefully they are aware of those...
Exemplary
So computer files can be copied easily, stolen through hacks, and even sometimes recovered after being deleted.
When a person takes sexual photos of themselves, hopefully they are aware of those risks and both take precautions and accept the remaining risk. If someone makes a deep fake of them, there's no consent; they are stripped of the ability to make decisions about how much risk they want to take when it comes to depictions of them in sexual contexts. The person who made the deepfake made those decisions for them, which they didn't have the right to do.
It seems like there’s still a realm in which deep fakes are ethically safe. It’s just really high effort. The act of creating them today is high effort as well, but that might not always be the...
It seems like there’s still a realm in which deep fakes are ethically safe. It’s just really high effort. The act of creating them today is high effort as well, but that might not always be the case.
Beyond what’s ethical there is a matter of what’s right and wrong for yourself. If you go through someone’s Instagram, pull out as many pictures of their face as you can get, buy computer hardware to train a neural network on the photos, spend hours applying that network to a pornographic video of a carefully selected body double, and then render a final mp4 you have a serious problem. Then you need to make sure never to share the file and delete it, writing over the sectors with random bits
That goes beyond sexual fantasy purely on an effort level. Someone performing that task is sexually obsessed with someone they can’t have. The target of their desire doesn’t know and won’t have to ever know. To anyone else it’s as if it never happened. But it’s not the best thing the deepfaker could have done for themselves.
I... hm.
Isn't this really just the argument for the immorality of all porn and sex work? Heck, even more broadly, all of society can be tarred with this brush, as it's all part of a system that supports and continues the degradation of all sorts of minorities. I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion, really. It's just... am I misreading it? It feels like a conclusion of "deepfakes are bad because society is bad" is really facile, but that's what I'm getting.
I also don’t really see how this argument doesn’t implicate sexual fantasies. Moreover, I would think men would be equally, if not more put off by deep fake porn being made of them so it’s pretty clear that it’s not the macro view that prompts people’s intuitive revulsion to it.
Predominantly doesn’t mean “exclusively,” though. And even if it’s consumed by men that doesn’t mean it’s only women who are the subjects. What’s more, all of that is true of regular old porn too.
Frankly I don’t think this author really understands how moral philosophy generally works. It’s not coming up with a legalistic definition to cover something you think is bad, it’s investigating why the thing feels like it’s bad and what that says about the broader moral truths insofar as we can posit they exist. He doesn’t seem to be looking into any aspect of the subjective experience of deepfakes feeling violating. Nobody is feeling violated by them because of some statistical notion around the gender balance of who is producing or consuming it. And men can also feel violated by it in ways the author doesn’t seem to understand or respect in the slightest.
That is an incredibly uncharitable read. The article is focused on disparities for a good reason but it doesn't even introduce gender until a decent portion of the way through and in the context of the problem as it currently exists.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're claiming here - is there a specific way in which men can feel violated by it that is not presented or is misunderstood in the paper? Keep in mind that even in the section which is heavily gendered, the author uses abstractions such as "A" and "B" referring to people for which gender is not specified.
Having only skimmed the article, there's a chance that there might be some kind of disconnect in the point the article gets across as opposed to the conclusion, but
seems to suggest that the author doesn't view deepfakes as unethical or immoral in and of themselves, but because of, well, its role in gender inequality. Maybe I just misinterpreted your comment, though.
I believe the author is arguing at the highest LoA at which it is impermissible. Much in the same way that the idea that murder can be argued against at a very high level LoA, the thrust of the article is about the ways in which we can identify ethical problems at the highest level possible. In the case of sexism, gender norms, and other societal level LoAs, there's a clear negative consequence and argument against deep faked porn.
However, the author spends time explaining that LoAs can exist on any level and makes sure to give examples of how this can run infinitesimally small. The idea that deepfakes cannot be found to be unethical or immoral at a different level for different people seems to ignore the LoA framework as outlined. To spend the article talking about every possible minute level of LoA in which it would be unethical seems like a fruitless endeavor.
Ok, but then by that line of thought aren't all new things bad, in that they're the fruits of the existing paradigm?
Fair enough. I suppose I like the general theory of Levels of Abstraction as a method of determining the morality of a situation, don't mind its application to the question of deepfakes, and feel like this paper in particular was barely dipping its toe in the murky waters of the situation.
I haven't yet read the rest of the article, so maybe this is addressed, but I'd say that the very clear difference between unethical activity and the ethical activity is that you can share and decieve people with the product of the unethical one, and can only share the description for the ethical one.
The author maintains that even were it impossible to share the deepfake product, our moral intuitions would still be conflicted compared to an organic fantasy.
Only half-way through myself but it reads fairly well. It's the most scholarly address of Deepfakes (from an admittedly narrow perspective) that I've seen floatin around.
Using moral intuitions always feels a little shaky (and often breaks down on non-WEIRD populations), especially when introducing conditions that might not feel plausible, such as:
I don't think such a technology is possible, and I think that factors in to whatever intuition I have when considering it.
Why does the ability to make it unethical? Surely that would be unethical if you made the choice to exercise that ability?
(note this obviously doesn't apply to the release of tool with which to do it, just an individual privately using already existing tools)
So computer files can be copied easily, stolen through hacks, and even sometimes recovered after being deleted.
When a person takes sexual photos of themselves, hopefully they are aware of those risks and both take precautions and accept the remaining risk. If someone makes a deep fake of them, there's no consent; they are stripped of the ability to make decisions about how much risk they want to take when it comes to depictions of them in sexual contexts. The person who made the deepfake made those decisions for them, which they didn't have the right to do.
It seems like there’s still a realm in which deep fakes are ethically safe. It’s just really high effort. The act of creating them today is high effort as well, but that might not always be the case.
Beyond what’s ethical there is a matter of what’s right and wrong for yourself. If you go through someone’s Instagram, pull out as many pictures of their face as you can get, buy computer hardware to train a neural network on the photos, spend hours applying that network to a pornographic video of a carefully selected body double, and then render a final mp4 you have a serious problem. Then you need to make sure never to share the file and delete it, writing over the sectors with random bits
That goes beyond sexual fantasy purely on an effort level. Someone performing that task is sexually obsessed with someone they can’t have. The target of their desire doesn’t know and won’t have to ever know. To anyone else it’s as if it never happened. But it’s not the best thing the deepfaker could have done for themselves.