That’s a silly premise.
The technology is already out there. You’re never going to assume that everything is real. Just because you say ‘it has been stopped’ doesn’t mean it really stopped. It would be worse if someone set about stopping deep fakes and proclaiming it a success, because I guarantee you it wont be.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree. I actually don’t think he’s sincere - he must KNOW there’s no example of a technology genie being put back in the bottle because of public uneasiness. To me, that’s a PR piece advancing a strategy. He’s supposed to be too smart to miss the blindingly obvious. He’s shrieking about it like it’s a house fire.
“He’s supposed to be too smart to miss the blindingly obvious”
Smart about psychology, sociology, etc, does not make one smart about technology.
“I actually don’t think he’s sincere”.
Given what I’ve heard of Peterson in the past, I don’t think he could be more sincere.
But what I couldn’t help thinking when I’d finished the posted article was this: How do we know what was written in that article actually was from Jordan Peterson? Not that I don’t think it was him, but if you can fake video and you can fake audio you can certainly fake written, and you can fake web addresses and damn near anything.
So ultimately it seems to me responsibility comes back to whoever *promulgates* a video or an article or whatever. If Peterson had *not* written the article that was posted, and someone had just submitted (with whatever technical embellishments) as his, how would he prove to the site he was Jordan Peterson? And how would he make it known that he, Jordan Peterson, wanted that article removed because it wasn’t him?
The technology genie out of his bottle is why criminals and terrorists will always have guns. (The left knows that; it is about disarming the law-abiding majority.)