Highest Rated Comments

lonnib146 karma

Very important and interesting question. Indeed we are aware of potential misuses and even mention them on the TEDx video about this.

First, the technology to process images existed before we thought of this as a use case (it was invented by researchers working on rendering techniques). So governments could have used it for a while. Our contribution is mainly the study: we have found one technique that seems to reduce aversion more than the others. The google chrome plugin is but a small contribution to have as a proof of concept (and we'd be happy to see people extend on it, it's all on GitHub).

Second, the implementation of the google chrome extension gives complete control to the user. You decide if the extension is on or not and you can decide how strong the processing of the image is going to be. A right click on the image and you get the original image back.

Third, as with any technology, abuse is impossible to avoid. The internet is a wonderful technology but has been used to spy or do a lot of illegal things (from governments to individuals). As we did not even invent the technique, we have very little control over its use, but we make sure to explain that user control is necessary for this kind of technology to be useful.

lonnib42 karma

I do not think so. But you might have something in mind that I have not thought of...?

lonnib35 karma

So with the study in the papers we have tried to identify the ideal parameters for surgery. But the google chrome plugin actually gives you the possibility to set the values you want yourself. So you can decide 1/ if you want the plugin to work at all, 2/ how strong you want the filtering of the image to be so the trade-off is done by you and you alone eventually. We can only provide with recommended value based on the limited pool of images that we have tried.

Edit: spelling

lonnib29 karma

Sometimes I feel like people haven't checked out the example at all... Thanks for pointing it out

lonnib29 karma

Again, there are two things you should consider.

1/ we do see downsides and have explored them. But if users have control, it should all be ok (although we also explore some downsides there even with user control).

2/ research is not about the use that people make of it. I explained this in another thread. Nuclear energy --> atomic bomb. Internet --> Sharing of murder videos and a lot of very illegal and morally-wrong content... should the people/researchers working on these have not done the research because of these potential downsides?

Edit: how about photoshop? this seems like it could do wayyyy more damage than our study results.