11 ms·

The issue, unfortunately, is that if I were to generate a video of Mike Pence doing something X-rated with another man, there's no conceivable way the scientifi

The issue, unfortunately, is that if I were to generate a video of Mike Pence doing something X-rated with another man, there's no conceivable way the scientific method would help. I mean, if he were a closeted homosexual, would you really immediately discount it as faked just because the evidence was against it? That happens to conservative American politicians all the time. Worse, the current president has set a new bar for saying outlandish things. Every time he opens his mouth I am literally shocked into silence. The number of things I genuinely cannot imagine him saying is shrinking rapidly. If you were to see a video of Trump walking up to a podium like Obama did when he announced Bin Landen's death and saying very solemnly that bombs were about to be dropped on Russia, would your first thought be "Preposterous! There's no way the man would do that; it must be a clever hoax." Not to mention that if this technology becomes exceptionally user-friendly it could be used to destroy lives in myriad ways. Where is your science now?

pdkl95 9y ago
I would say that such a video is none of my business; just like the Clinton's bj, that's a private topic that should be relevant only to the people involved. I get your point, that scandals involving outdated systems of morality are still a problem in some areas. Technology marches on, and we must learn - as a species - to update our social and moral systems fast or we may find out that intelligence is not[1] an effective survival trait in the long-term. > The number of things I genuinely cannot imagine him saying is shrinking rapidly. Trump's speech is very predictable in it's general theme. The details are random, but he always says things that are self-serving, in a childish "obviously I was always right" attitude. If there's is a way to add a not-very-subtle insult, he will add it. Most important, it's foolish to try to parse his statements for information, because that's not how he uses language. Instead, he uses phatic[2] language to express emotion, confidence, and social standing. > [Trump] saying very solemnly that bombs were about to be dropped on Russia Why would he bomb the people he wants to do business with? The few comments Trump has made about increasing talks with Russia is one of the very few things I like about Trump (not that I expect he will actually do anything whatsoever on that topic). Anything that reduces the risk of nuclear war is great. > I am literally shocked into silence. Fear is the mind killer. Recently a lot of people of - orthogonal to political ideology - are doing everything in their power to push the politics of fear. Almost all of it is unsubstantiated hot air... which is what the Baloney Detection Kit is for. Science isn't perfect, but it's still the best method we have for filtering out charlatans, propagandists, and simple mistakes. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916033 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577909
- ShannonAlther 9y ago
  The point wasn't about outdated morality. It could just as easily be a doctored video of Theresa May stabbing a man to death in cold blood. I think you've focused too much on the specific examples I gave. Consider a faked video of your SO committing adultery, or a faked video of you committing a crime that's used to convict you, or a video of Merkel saying Putin has erectile disfunction or something. You can't just analyze these videos for inconsistencies; at some point, the technology becomes more powerful than human ability to discern whether it's real. Then what? What do we do once video evidence becomes unreliable? (By "shocked into silence" I mean, "stunned by how asinine/insane/pointless/cruel that just was".)

pdkl95 9y ago

I would say that such a video is none of my business; just like the Clinton's bj, that's a private topic that should be relevant only to the people involved. I get your point, that scandals involving outdated systems of morality are still a problem in some areas. Technology marches on, and we must learn - as a species - to update our social and moral systems fast or we may find out that intelligence is not[1] an effective survival trait in the long-term. > The number of things I genuinely cannot imagine him saying is shrinking rapidly. Trump's speech is very predictable in it's general theme. The details are random, but he always says things that are self-serving, in a childish "obviously I was always right" attitude. If there's is a way to add a not-very-subtle insult, he will add it. Most important, it's foolish to try to parse his statements for information, because that's not how he uses language. Instead, he uses phatic[2] language to express emotion, confidence, and social standing. > [Trump] saying very solemnly that bombs were about to be dropped on Russia Why would he bomb the people he wants to do business with? The few comments Trump has made about increasing talks with Russia is one of the very few things I like about Trump (not that I expect he will actually do anything whatsoever on that topic). Anything that reduces the risk of nuclear war is great. > I am literally shocked into silence. Fear is the mind killer. Recently a lot of people of - orthogonal to political ideology - are doing everything in their power to push the politics of fear. Almost all of it is unsubstantiated hot air... which is what the Baloney Detection Kit is for. Science isn't perfect, but it's still the best method we have for filtering out charlatans, propagandists, and simple mistakes. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916033 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14577909

ShannonAlther 9y ago
The point wasn't about outdated morality. It could just as easily be a doctored video of Theresa May stabbing a man to death in cold blood. I think you've focused too much on the specific examples I gave. Consider a faked video of your SO committing adultery, or a faked video of you committing a crime that's used to convict you, or a video of Merkel saying Putin has erectile disfunction or something. You can't just analyze these videos for inconsistencies; at some point, the technology becomes more powerful than human ability to discern whether it's real. Then what? What do we do once video evidence becomes unreliable? (By "shocked into silence" I mean, "stunned by how asinine/insane/pointless/cruel that just was".)