3 ms·

I hear this ethical concern raised a lot, usually as some variation of AI being used to distribute “fake news.” The inverse is equally problematic and harder t

I hear this ethical concern raised a lot, usually as some variation of AI being used to distribute “fake news.” The inverse is equally problematic and harder to solve: those in power discrediting real photos/videos/phone-calls as “deep fakes.” Not releasing AI models doesn’t stop this. The technology being possible is sufficient for its use in discrediting evidence. Signing real footage isn’t sufficient. You can get G7 to sign an official conference recording, but could you get someone to sign the recording of them taking a bribe? Generating deep fakes that hold up to intense scrutiny doesn’t appear to be technically feasible with anything available to the public today. But that isn’t necessary to discredit real footage as a deep fake. It being feasible that nation state level funding could have secretly developed this tech is sufficient. It seems we are quickly approaching that point, if not already past it.

alexose 4y ago
> The inverse is equally problematic and harder to solve: those in power discrediting real photos/videos/phone-calls as “deep fakes.” This is true. Although witnesses and/or the person behind the camera could sign the video. They might want to, in fact, if they thought they might be witnessing something illegal and might need to defend themselves later. I guess I'm imagining a future where signed videos are common. Unsigned content or content signed by some random entity would draw suspicion. Maybe not enough to keep people from seeing it, but enough that it wouldn't spread like wildfire like it does today. There could be disputed videos, too-- Where one party signs and one doesn't. Or maybe a situation where two parties secretly ally against another to run a more convincing smear. Hmm, there's all kinds of weirdness that a system like this might create. Maybe a cyberpunk author could explore it further :)

alexose 4y ago

> The inverse is equally problematic and harder to solve: those in power discrediting real photos/videos/phone-calls as “deep fakes.” This is true. Although witnesses and/or the person behind the camera could sign the video. They might want to, in fact, if they thought they might be witnessing something illegal and might need to defend themselves later. I guess I'm imagining a future where signed videos are common. Unsigned content or content signed by some random entity would draw suspicion. Maybe not enough to keep people from seeing it, but enough that it wouldn't spread like wildfire like it does today. There could be disputed videos, too-- Where one party signs and one doesn't. Or maybe a situation where two parties secretly ally against another to run a more convincing smear. Hmm, there's all kinds of weirdness that a system like this might create. Maybe a cyberpunk author could explore it further :)