> Perhaps because the the negative consequences are so visually obvious and require few intuitive leaps.
Exactly this. At some point it's not feasible to calculate the impact of a technology's trickle down. Unless the impact is large enough.
I'm not surprised people have such a viscerally moral reaction to deepfakes.
> There are lots of tools that have been built that have arguably done more harm that no one talks about, like port scanning tools
I don't think this is a fair argument against current tools.
If we had some way of accurately measuring the secondary effects of port-scanners, should we start caring? Should we retroactively remove any tools that we later regret? (I don't have good answers to these either)
I suspect this also applies to many criticisms of crypto and NFTs as bad for the environment. The impact is simply easy to calculate...not outsized to other industries. We certainly don't evaluate, say, the video game industry based on its environmental impact in the same way.
Exactly this. At some point it's not feasible to calculate the impact of a technology's trickle down. Unless the impact is large enough.
I'm not surprised people have such a viscerally moral reaction to deepfakes.
> There are lots of tools that have been built that have arguably done more harm that no one talks about, like port scanning tools
I don't think this is a fair argument against current tools.
If we had some way of accurately measuring the secondary effects of port-scanners, should we start caring? Should we retroactively remove any tools that we later regret? (I don't have good answers to these either)