特朗普否认人工智能泰勒·斯威夫特的照片:“我没有生成它们”

币界网2024-08-22 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-08-22 tarihinde güncellendi

币界网报道:

周三,美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的共和党候选人否认对人工智能生成的图像的创建有任何了解,这些图像显示年轻女性穿着印有“为特朗普加油”的t恤,以及泰勒·斯威夫特似乎支持这位前总统的海报。

这位前总统周日在他的Truth Social账户上分享了人工智能生成图像的截图,并在帖子中添加了“我接受!”。其中一张照片包括泰勒·斯威夫特的一个deepfake,上面写着“泰勒想让你投票给唐纳德·特朗普”,这张照片是第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战时期“山姆大叔”海报上的一个游戏。

在接受福克斯商业频道Grady Trimble的采访时,特朗普承认他知道这些不是真的。他问他是否担心自己会被这位巨星起诉。

特朗普说:“除了别人制造了它们,我对它们一无所知。”。“我没有生成它们;有人出来了,他们说,‘哦,看看这个。’这些都是别人编造的。”

特朗普和其他知名人士——包括现任总统乔·拜登、副总统卡玛拉·哈里斯和教皇方济各——一直是人工智能生成的深度伪造的对象,这些图像的传播在拜登3月份的国情咨文演讲中被提及。

为了利用他们的模型遏制虚假信息,许多人工智能开发人员努力防止他们各自的工具被用来生成与选举和当选官员相关的内容。尽管如此,像xAI的Grok这样的人工智能工具有更宽松的设置,使伪造图像更容易创建。

特朗普继续回应了他在2月份接受福克斯商业频道采访时发表的声明,他在采访中称人工智能“可怕”和“危险”

“人工智能总是以这种方式非常危险;它也发生在我身上,”特朗普说。“他们在制造,让我说话。我在人工智能方面说得非常完美,绝对完美,而且我也在为其他产品和事物代言。这有点危险。”

尽管特朗普称人工智能很危险,但在芝加哥举行的民主党全国代表大会之前,他也在X(又名推特)上分享了一张人工智能生成的副总统哈里斯的照片。

由Ryan Ozawa编辑。

İlgili Okumalar

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit1 saat önce

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit1 saat önce

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1 saat önce

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片