I actually disagree with that. I think software and ethics are closely intertwined and too often we see them as disjoint. It's interesting to try to find a software project that does not have an ethically dubious angle to it, that isn't all that simple.
My point is not that ethics don't matter, but rather that accessible deep fake technology has been on the verge of existing for years already. It was only a matter of time. You can have any ethical opinion about it that you want. But reality is that unverified video is no longer a trustworthy medium. If anything this software release makes that fact harder to ignore. We will have to adjust sooner rather than later.
While it's an interesting discussion, would you ask the same question to a knife or sword maker? Your tone in this and the AMA thread is combative, and wouldn't lead to a productive discussion.
It would be much more interesting to discuss the technical merits of this project than any particular moral concerns you might have, especially on this forum.
> Your tone in this and the AMA thread is combative, and wouldn't lead to a productive discussion.
That's mostly your impression. But that may be because you believe that I have a position with regards to this particular software, which I do not, I just see this as an opportunity to gain insight in the position of the author which I find interesting and which may help guide me in similar decisions in the future, because it's something that I've been wrestling with for a long, long time. Since 1995 in fact.
> It would be much more interesting to discuss the technical merits of this project than any particular moral concerns you might have, especially on this forum.
What you find more interesting and what I find more interesting do not necessarily have to be the same things, and you are totally welcome to ask your technical merits questions.
Finally, I don't like to be told what I can and can not discuss, especially not in a thread started by someone who wrote 'AMA' where the third A stands for 'Anything'.
Fully agreed. I think software directly addresses ethical questions far more often than we tend to be comfortable admitting - almost everything involving personal data runs full tilt into questions of identity and ownership, for example.
There's no right answer to a lot of the dilemmas raised, and people will reach their own conclusions and choose particular principles to follow. I don't want to tell people how to think, but I do think that everyone has a responsibility to actually think about these issues, wherever they end up landing on them.
Basically any pentesting software can be abused.