4 ms·

So you'd need a bunch of GPT-3+ stuff to corroborate the deepfake, exciting! Where do you determine the "troll-line" in a trust network? You can build it over

So you'd need a bunch of GPT-3+ stuff to corroborate the deepfake, exciting! Where do you determine the "troll-line" in a trust network? You can build it over time I suppose? Though that kind of leads to similar echo-chamber stuff, right? As an anecdote, I know real humans who do truly believe deepfaked political videos. They were genuinely surprised to know that Pelosi can talk like a normal human.

EGreg 6y ago
That’s a great point. Tons of people already don’t CARE about the facts, and consider fact-checkers to be just as biased as the statements they are checking. Just having 30%-90% of the population react to a deepfaked outrageous video will already be a huge damage even if 10% are stickler skeptics. “A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”
- brigandish 6y ago
  > and consider fact-checkers to be just as biased as the statements they are checking Aren't they? I can come up with examples off the top of my head, let alone with a search. This is my favourite[1]: > The fact-checker for the New Yorker who mistook a Marine veteran’s tattoo for a Nazi symbol has resigned, saying the “small mistake” has ruined her life. "mistook" is being kind. Take a look at her Twitter feed[2] and tell me if you think she's less biased than the stories that would've passed across her desk, because her feed is incredibly partisan. Do you think she managed to remain impartial while she was still employed as a fact checker? I wonder if she intended or wanted to be impartial, let alone managed it. I also wonder how that kind of person comes to be part of a team of fact checkers, which brings into question their impartiality. How was she able to make this “small mistake” and no one else on that team caught it? Perhaps they lack editorial oversight like Snopes[3], the Snopes that employs people who are obviously biased: > Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It's pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?” I'd say it was unbelievable but it's really not[4]. > Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us. Dropping one's scepticism because someone calls themselves an impartial fact checker strikes me as being in the same realm as following the orders of a complete stranger because they have a uniform and claim authority over you or a situation, i.e. unwise. [1] https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/new-yorker-staffer-resigns-after-falsely-accusing-ice-agent-of-having-nazi-tattoo/ https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/new-yorker-staffer-resigns-aft... [2] https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai... [4] https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635 https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635

EGreg 6y ago

That’s a great point. Tons of people already don’t CARE about the facts, and consider fact-checkers to be just as biased as the statements they are checking. Just having 30%-90% of the population react to a deepfaked outrageous video will already be a huge damage even if 10% are stickler skeptics. “A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”

brigandish 6y ago
> and consider fact-checkers to be just as biased as the statements they are checking Aren't they? I can come up with examples off the top of my head, let alone with a search. This is my favourite[1]: > The fact-checker for the New Yorker who mistook a Marine veteran’s tattoo for a Nazi symbol has resigned, saying the “small mistake” has ruined her life. "mistook" is being kind. Take a look at her Twitter feed[2] and tell me if you think she's less biased than the stories that would've passed across her desk, because her feed is incredibly partisan. Do you think she managed to remain impartial while she was still employed as a fact checker? I wonder if she intended or wanted to be impartial, let alone managed it. I also wonder how that kind of person comes to be part of a team of fact checkers, which brings into question their impartiality. How was she able to make this “small mistake” and no one else on that team caught it? Perhaps they lack editorial oversight like Snopes[3], the Snopes that employs people who are obviously biased: > Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It's pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?” I'd say it was unbelievable but it's really not[4]. > Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us. Dropping one's scepticism because someone calls themselves an impartial fact checker strikes me as being in the same realm as following the orders of a complete stranger because they have a uniform and claim authority over you or a situation, i.e. unwise. [1] https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/new-yorker-staffer-resigns-after-falsely-accusing-ice-agent-of-having-nazi-tattoo/ https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/new-yorker-staffer-resigns-aft... [2] https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai... [4] https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635 https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635