It's the same pattern over and over - they develop a technology, acknowledge the risk of it being abused and the need for safeguards, but then realize that building in those safeguards will get in the way of turning it into a product and just YOLO release it into the wild anyway. The same thing happened with LLMs, which were deemed "too dangerous to release" due to the risk of producing a massive tidal wave of spam and propaganda, and yet here we are under a massive tidal wave of LLM spam and about to head into the first US election in the unrestricted LLM era. The very first paper on image generation diffusion models called out the risk of it being used for malicious purposes, such as deepfake nudes, and yet here we are in the era of one-click zero-effort deepfake nude generation services using that very technology.
What's the point of considering potential abuses if you're just going to facilitate them regardless? If anything that's worse than not considering abuse at all, because it implies that you know what you've created will result in kids killing themselves after fake nudes of them spread around their school, or enable rampant fraud and extortion through voice cloning, but you believe that's just the price of progress.
What? Are you saying OpenAI, Google, Meta, etc did nothing to combat abuse and provide safeguards?
If so, that is easily provably wrong, unless you think there's an enormous conspiracy involving thousands of people to pretend that they're working on it when they really aren't.
That's a good point, we might not even need new policies. I bet the detectives or a court subpoena could get records of internet history. People might just be able to sue whoever generated the deep fakes that caused damages.
