3 ms·
Or breaking somebody's life buy making the perso do something bad, and make the family stumble upon. The potential for manipulation is huge given how many peop
by sametmax 8y ago
Or breaking somebody's life buy making the perso do something bad, and make the family stumble upon.
The potential for manipulation is huge given how many people trust pictures. I know that I don't distrust most pictures I see.
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoIt's still largely possible to spot most fake images produced by non-specialists (I mean like newspaper or IG images).
- sametmax 8y agoStalin used doctoring 70 years ago with pitiful tech, and it worked. Today even basic photoshop skills can do much better, and it doesn't matter if it's called out by the righ people, it will have done damages. Some people still confuse The Onion articles with real ones after all.
- jobigoud 8y agoThe first consequence of this tech is that we'll have to stop trusting video evidence. What you describe is a use case that will only be valid for a short period of time while society adjust. What GP is describing is the long term consequence of not being able to trust video evidence. Now even if you film someone red handed, they can deny it. Another dire consequence is that the entire archive of all videos filmed since the beginning are now tainted by doubt. Any past politician speech, any past horror caught on film, etc. can now be said to have been crafted recently.
- sametmax 8y agoWe faked photos for decades now. People still trust them.