> the harm in that case is the embarrassment and you can achieve the same results in 10 minutes with any image editing software
The harm is not the "embarrassment" of seeing someone in the likeness of yourself (or your son, your friend, your partner, etc) doing something shameful. The harm is the fact that people are very likely to believe it is true and it's not a fake obviously edited photo or video.
You can disagree on the seriousness of the harm or risk or danger or whatever but I think the distinction between an obviously silly/embarrassing fake (a puppet, papier mache, badly done photoshop picture) and a realistic convincing deepfake video is pretty obvious. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
> IMO most of the harm from AI is likely to come from people not believing things that are real, and dismissing reality with “that’s just a deepfake”.
This is also a really good point and I agree it's a danger.
Still, I'm not an expert and this might be entirely unfeasible but I can totally imagine some kind of trusted execution environment that cross checks specific instructions at the API level when the client communicates with the server using some kind of trusted operation (backed by cryptography).
There are already VMs that are used to run trusted instructions on a target (read: client) machine and regardless of you knowing how the VM works and what the code does, if you don't "play by the rules" (as is the world of cryptography), your data will not be accepted and you will get kicked/banned/disconnected.
Is it computationally expensive? Probably. Is it feasible? I don't know. Is it theoretically possible? I'd say so.
>Increasing the time and skill needed to reverse engineer your anticheat increases the time it takes for someone to develop a cheat.
This is the good ol' security by obscurity fallacy. Having it open increases the amount of people who have eyes on the code and contribute to the code and finds exploits to patch, etc. It's two sides of the same coin.
I don't think this is really a given. I admit I'm not familiar with whether or not there exist some free and open source anti-cheat software out there but I can definitely imagine a world where if people put enough resources in developing such software it'd be totally possible to be as good as current proprietary anti-cheat techniques.
Claiming that knowing how the code works lets you break the code is basically advocating for security by obscurity which I'm fairly sure we're all aware it's not the holy grail of a secure system. If you will allow me a bit of a hyperbole, it'd be like saying that since I have access to the entire code of my SSH client, that gives me the capability of modifying it so it lets me connect to every server (even those that I do not own) without a password. That's simply not how it works.
> - open folder selection dialog - click a folder by mistake without double clicking it - clicking the select folder button now enters the folder instead of selecting the current folder - there no way to unselect the selection. -> you have to enter the folder, then go a level up and then select the folder
Glad I'm not the only one with this problem, it's so frustrating and there's literally nothing you can do about it, you just gotta go up one level and come back down.
Really nice, it's so weird that format strings support %n, it's such a massive security vulnerability that I don't really know what was going on in the mind of the guy that decided to implement this.
The harm is not the "embarrassment" of seeing someone in the likeness of yourself (or your son, your friend, your partner, etc) doing something shameful. The harm is the fact that people are very likely to believe it is true and it's not a fake obviously edited photo or video.
You can disagree on the seriousness of the harm or risk or danger or whatever but I think the distinction between an obviously silly/embarrassing fake (a puppet, papier mache, badly done photoshop picture) and a realistic convincing deepfake video is pretty obvious. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
> IMO most of the harm from AI is likely to come from people not believing things that are real, and dismissing reality with “that’s just a deepfake”.
This is also a really good point and I agree it's a danger.