5 ms·

But you are making the argument that releasing it is protective, and there is no basis for that argument. > Society must unlearn that seeing is believing. A t

But you are making the argument that releasing it is protective, and there is no basis for that argument. > Society must unlearn that seeing is believing. A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7.

trasz 4y ago
>A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7. It's no different from religion, which was the backbone of the western civilisation for quite some time.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)
  - munk-a 4y ago
    Religion is a very complicated and touchy subject - it means drastically different things to different people.
  - trasz 4y ago
    Religion claims that certain things are true when they contradict observable reality. There's no fundamental difference between claimed gods and deepfaked ones.
    - burrows 4y ago
      The deepfaked ones actually speak.
    - mensetmanusman 4y ago
      Many of the claims of religion can’t be contradicted by observed reality because they are pointing to things beyond the observable (ie non-Falsifiable, like the proposed existence of a multiverse). For example, religion claims you have free well. For a materialist, any interesting definition of free will is impossible, because we are made of quantum particles with defined statistical behavior. Of course, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of free will in other people either…
ethanbond 4y ago
Yeah I can’t believe that people think it’s possibly a desirable future for there to be no such thing as trust, and furthermore that we should accelerate our march in that direction. What an insane way to live.
- ridgered4 4y ago
  It's not desirable at all, but it is inevitable and in many ways already here. While I'm not sure I agree with the argument, I think the idea is holding this stuff back just means it's more powerful and nefarious for those that do have it because the population at large will remain unaware for longer that trust is already gone. And that means innocent people are going to get hurt while that knowledge asymmetry in the population is delayed from catching up.
  - thingification 4y ago
    I honestly am puzzled: the both of you (if I understand you right), do you really think some fake videos will cause there to "be no such thing as trust"? Why? Videos aren't the only way to understand the world, and there was never any such thing as "direct observation" in the first place.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      Videos are considered one of the more authoritative sources of factual information. E.g. Imagine how disruptive it’d be if a deepfake of Biden announcing support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine were to circulate during those first hours of the invasion? Sure, there are other communications channels that would be able to dispute the authenticity of that video, but would those channels be as fast and as (apparently) authoritative as video of Biden “himself” declaring his support? Now consider a few months after this hypothetical fake-and-refutation, what if Biden actually does announce an emergency threat to America, and people end up waiting a few days (or weeks, or months) for the refutation to come. The “no such thing as trust” is not coming from this innovation in particular but rather the confluence of two general trends: 1) heavy reliance on digital media and 2) ever-increasing ability to fake digital media. Note that you don’t even need large, successful falsified media campaigns to create distrust. All you need is for people to know that the capability exists, and trust is immediately damaged. Even trivially-detectable falsifications can end up being difficult to sort through if there are a billion fake pieces of information crowding out a hundred real pieces of information. This is true even if all billion fakes are trivially detectable by a human (which they won’t be).

trasz 4y ago

>A total lack of trust of our shared perception? Let me know how that works out. Might as well have everyone on acid 24/7. It's no different from religion, which was the backbone of the western civilisation for quite some time.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)
- munk-a 4y ago
  Religion is a very complicated and touchy subject - it means drastically different things to different people.
- trasz 4y ago
  Religion claims that certain things are true when they contradict observable reality. There's no fundamental difference between claimed gods and deepfaked ones.
  - burrows 4y ago
    The deepfaked ones actually speak.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Many of the claims of religion can’t be contradicted by observed reality because they are pointing to things beyond the observable (ie non-Falsifiable, like the proposed existence of a multiverse). For example, religion claims you have free well. For a materialist, any interesting definition of free will is impossible, because we are made of quantum particles with defined statistical behavior. Of course, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of free will in other people either…

ethanbond 4y ago

Yeah I can’t believe that people think it’s possibly a desirable future for there to be no such thing as trust, and furthermore that we should accelerate our march in that direction. What an insane way to live.

ridgered4 4y ago
It's not desirable at all, but it is inevitable and in many ways already here. While I'm not sure I agree with the argument, I think the idea is holding this stuff back just means it's more powerful and nefarious for those that do have it because the population at large will remain unaware for longer that trust is already gone. And that means innocent people are going to get hurt while that knowledge asymmetry in the population is delayed from catching up.
- thingification 4y ago
  I honestly am puzzled: the both of you (if I understand you right), do you really think some fake videos will cause there to "be no such thing as trust"? Why? Videos aren't the only way to understand the world, and there was never any such thing as "direct observation" in the first place.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Videos are considered one of the more authoritative sources of factual information. E.g. Imagine how disruptive it’d be if a deepfake of Biden announcing support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine were to circulate during those first hours of the invasion? Sure, there are other communications channels that would be able to dispute the authenticity of that video, but would those channels be as fast and as (apparently) authoritative as video of Biden “himself” declaring his support? Now consider a few months after this hypothetical fake-and-refutation, what if Biden actually does announce an emergency threat to America, and people end up waiting a few days (or weeks, or months) for the refutation to come. The “no such thing as trust” is not coming from this innovation in particular but rather the confluence of two general trends: 1) heavy reliance on digital media and 2) ever-increasing ability to fake digital media. Note that you don’t even need large, successful falsified media campaigns to create distrust. All you need is for people to know that the capability exists, and trust is immediately damaged. Even trivially-detectable falsifications can end up being difficult to sort through if there are a billion fake pieces of information crowding out a hundred real pieces of information. This is true even if all billion fakes are trivially detectable by a human (which they won’t be).