4 ms·
No… we’re ready. Celebrity endorsements have always been meaningless. Hopefully more people realize this.
by rcme 4y ago
No… we’re ready. Celebrity endorsements have always been meaningless. Hopefully more people realize this.
- minimaxir 4y agoThey may be useless to you, but you are most likely not the target market for these ads. Celebrity/influencer marketing is one of the few marketing strategies that actually works consistently.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- UncleEntity 4y agoProbably used to work consistently is more apt. What’s the world coming to if you can’t trust that the person pushing a product isn’t actually a paid corporate shill but is instead a scammer trying to separate you from your money. There’s probably a distinction between the two, right? Paris Hilton promoting CryptoKitties vs a fake Paris Hilton promoting CryptoKitties — the difference is obvious.
- minimaxir 4y agoThat's the reason why people who make high-effort deepfakes tend to attract a lot of lawsuits, which serves as a strong check on widespread usage.
- flangola7 4y agoI'm not aware of any deepfake lawsuits at all. You can't sue an anonymous 4chan user or some Russian with a GitHub project
- minimaxir 4y agoIn the case of the original submission, I suspect Joe Rogan's lawyers can sue the energy company explicitly named, and subpoena TikTok for more detailed business identification and ad engagement for quantifying damages.
- rcme 4y agoThe costs of doing that will become exorbitant if the problem becomes widespread.
- coffeebeqn 4y agoEven Coffeezilla selling a fake security or privacy tool for example
- PheonixPharts 4y agoI believe the subtle point being made is that the fear of AI here is that it will subvert out expectations of authenticity in order to sell us a product. However influence culture already does this. Influencers represent identities fostered entirely for the purpose of convincing you to consume product. You could make similar claims for the mountain of garbage writing that falls under the category of "content marketing". It's an attempt to create authentic information for the real reason of selling you a product. The point being that influencers, content marketer and similar sophisticated advertising strategies already are artificial intelligence. Joe Rogan is a personality created to sell you products, most blogs are empty content designed to attract your attention just enough to convince you to trust them to sell a product. The distinction between the real Joe Rogan selling you a product and an artificially generate Joe Rogan selling you a different product is only a concerning thing to people paying Joe Rogan to sell their product. For the average consumer, they have already have been duped by AI for years now.
- sandworm101 4y agoKardashian? No. Will not impact my buying habits whatsoever. But if LTT says to stay away from a product, I would be very very hesitant to consider it. If Attenborough does a psa, I will 100% take his opinion into consideration. Not everything is about "influencers".
- rib3ye 4y agoIs this an argument against LTT being an influencer?
- LilBytes 4y agoI read it as an argument for LTT being an influence. Sorry, broke my own standards. LTT = Linus Tech Tips. YouTuber. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXuqSBlHAE6Xw-yeJA0Tunw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXuqSBlHAE6Xw-yeJA0Tunw
- refuse 4y agoWHO IS LTT
- nl 4y agoI think it is Linus Tech Tips. Unclear if the OP would prefer makeup recommendations from Linus over Kim Kardasian or if they just don't buy makeup.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- acomjean 4y agoLinus tech tips is a YouTube channel by some guy in Canada who reviews computers and other tech. It’s turned into a kind of mini channel with other reviewers. Not to be confused with “Linus” of Linux fame who doesn’t contribute to the channel.
- sandworm101 4y ago
- jay_kyburz 4y agoJust wait till somebody deepfakes Sundar Pichai saying something dumb, tanking Googles share price for a few minutes, but long enough for that somebody to get rich. I think it might be refreshing for everybody to completely disbelieve everything they see and hear on screens. Where we can only believe what we can hold in our hands in front of us. It's going to be hard to run a democracy though.
- minimaxir 4y agoDeepfake technology has been in a good enough state for years that a bad actor could do just that. There are many reasons they haven't. (How would you distribute a deepfake of Pichai such that the markets would take it seriously?) Even during the crypto boom there were deepfakes to manipulate the market, which didn't even work.
- haswell 4y agoHuberman isn’t a celebrity though, and is known for giving out advice that is usually at least somewhat credible.
- bruce511 4y agoEndorsements are not the problem. They are clearly promoting a product, and we all presume they've been paid to do do. The real problem are the not-endorsements. The "our cameras caught this when he thought his mic was off". For politics especially its the unscripted moments people believe. Equally it offers plausible deniability to anything that is captured. Just claim its a deep-fake and the vast majority of supporters will believe you,because they want to. Phrases like "a picture never lies" or "I'll believe it when I see it" all start falling away. In a world where people want to be right, not informed; when anger wins more elections than hope, where fear of the future overwhelms the comfort of the present, deep fakes erode one more thing you can trust.
- thatguy0900 4y agoExactly. I'm not worried at all about fakes. I'm worried about people claiming fakes. If ChatGPT can perfectly imitate anyone's speech patterns, and you can fake someone's voice and video perfectly, everyone with power in the world basically gets out of everything. Evidence will be meaningless.