3 ms·

Photoshop has been common knowledge for years, and people still buy some very dumb edits. I imagine that deepfakes will follow a similar path to edited photos

Photoshop has been common knowledge for years, and people still buy some very dumb edits. I imagine that deepfakes will follow a similar path to edited photos -- lots of deception, followed by trustworthy sources gaining a little more cachet, but with many people still getting fleeced. Skepticism will ramp up in direct relation to youth, wealth, and tech-savvy.

smrtinsert 4y ago
Even simple video fakes such as slowing down a politicians speech to make them look slow or indecisive has gone viral. It doesn't take state of the art to lie to those who prefer their own echo chamber.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Plenty of people have mislead others online with nothing but text! Ultimately we're going to have to just accept the fact that you can't believe everything you see on the internet.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    Video is more effective than text, because people think they've seen whatever event and formed their own conclusions. Those are much stronger than just being told what happened.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      I've seen it argued that text is worse because it forces people to read the words with their own inner voice. Somewhere in this discussion is a guy who linked to studies saying you are incapable of reading anything without believing it. (Do you believe me?) Text, photoshop, special effects, deepfakes they're all just tools for spreading ideas, but we've been dealing (to some degree of success) with folks telling lies for as long as we've had language. I just can't see this fundamentally changing anything except the level of skepticism we give to video which (considering what hollywood has been capable of for some time) we should have been developing already.
      - kadoban 4y ago
        > I've seen it argued that text is worse because it forces people to read the words with their own inner voice. Somewhere in this discussion is a guy who linked to studies saying you are incapable of reading anything without believing it. Seems like there'd have to be some big caveats for that to be at all true, but it is interesting. I've read a lot of ridiculous crap and haven't been persuaded by much of it. > (Do you believe me?) No.
        autoexec 4y ago
        You've just disproved his point, but it was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32939058#32940128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32939058#32940128
        kadoban 4y ago
        Ahh, that study. That's an interesting one. I don't think I'd summarize it as "we believe what we read" so much as "correcting false information isn't as easy as telling people they're wrong".

smrtinsert 4y ago

Even simple video fakes such as slowing down a politicians speech to make them look slow or indecisive has gone viral. It doesn't take state of the art to lie to those who prefer their own echo chamber.

autoexec 4y ago
Plenty of people have mislead others online with nothing but text! Ultimately we're going to have to just accept the fact that you can't believe everything you see on the internet.
- kadoban 4y ago
  Video is more effective than text, because people think they've seen whatever event and formed their own conclusions. Those are much stronger than just being told what happened.
  - autoexec 4y ago
    I've seen it argued that text is worse because it forces people to read the words with their own inner voice. Somewhere in this discussion is a guy who linked to studies saying you are incapable of reading anything without believing it. (Do you believe me?) Text, photoshop, special effects, deepfakes they're all just tools for spreading ideas, but we've been dealing (to some degree of success) with folks telling lies for as long as we've had language. I just can't see this fundamentally changing anything except the level of skepticism we give to video which (considering what hollywood has been capable of for some time) we should have been developing already.
    - kadoban 4y ago
      > I've seen it argued that text is worse because it forces people to read the words with their own inner voice. Somewhere in this discussion is a guy who linked to studies saying you are incapable of reading anything without believing it. Seems like there'd have to be some big caveats for that to be at all true, but it is interesting. I've read a lot of ridiculous crap and haven't been persuaded by much of it. > (Do you believe me?) No.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        You've just disproved his point, but it was here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32939058#32940128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32939058#32940128
        kadoban 4y ago
        Ahh, that study. That's an interesting one. I don't think I'd summarize it as "we believe what we read" so much as "correcting false information isn't as easy as telling people they're wrong".