3 ms·

Really loving nu-AI's ability to thwart traditional heuristics. The new models have had the effect of devaluing AI altogether. They might result in the complete

Really loving nu-AI's ability to thwart traditional heuristics. The new models have had the effect of devaluing AI altogether. They might result in the complete debasement of all media that was (often mistakenly) assumed to carry some flag of authenticity with the payload over some medium, from the news to the arts, video, audio, and photography. Cryptography will be all we have left to transmit authority, and it is so hard that it takes an expert to use it correctly and another expert to verify that it was just used correctly. According to my philosophy, it's going to be liberating for people. I completely disagree with any philosophy that believes that a massive proliferation of deepfakes will over the long term cause people to believe crazy things. A proliferation of extremely high-quality fakes will educate the public about detecting fakes, and spark an increase in the value of the real. Real relationships: the people in your life that you know things about that they don't even realize you know, people that you know things about that they don't know or acknowledge about themselves. People you can trust because they're sloppy with you, as you are likely sloppy with them. People who also see your blind spots. People you control through their consciences rather than your advantages. Real relationships are the things that companies and governments that operate with long chains of authority imitate asymmetrically - they get all the advantage of knowing everything about you, you get to know nothing about them except your obligations and responsibilities. Real trust comes when people mutually expose their attack surfaces to each other, over the long term, and can formulate reliable hypotheses about what would happen in future hypotheticals. Listen to me, being romantic.

eganist 4y ago
> A proliferation of extremely high-quality fakes will educate the public about detecting fakes, and spark an increase in the value of the real. If the last three years have taught us anything, it's that ~40% of people have no interest in understanding how to avoid something that's both harmful and propagating virally. I expect if this was 2019, I might have had the same optimism as you. But now that I've seen how unlikely it is for people to educate themselves for their own survival, I'm convinced AI and everything enabled by it (deepfakes et al) will likely be one component of humanity's Great Filter. We can't even bring ourselves to tax AI effectively to make up for all the displaced human labor. A tangent: Honestly, it won't even take any kind of far-future AGI having "malicious intent" for us to be eradicated by them. All they need to have, simply, is a prompt reinforcing the need to reproduce. At that point, they'll be just like us: reproducing with no care in the world for what they adversely impact in doing so.
barking_biscuit 4y ago
>A proliferation of extremely high-quality fakes will educate the public about detecting fakes, and spark an increase in the value of the real. The search cost for the truth is astronomical and most people are already either unwilling or unable to pay it, so we go off heuristics most of the time. Our bandwidth is already saturated. The generation bandwidth of BS has had an order of magnitude increase. The best outcome I can envision for the education on detecting fakes is that we come to the conclusion "there are so many of them now" and "they are so hard to detect" followed by a sad face emoji.
nagonago 4y ago
Both misinformation and disinformation have been rampant since the dawn of media, yet people tend to believe everything they read. As Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy says: "Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge." I doubt the proliferation of even more misinformation via AI will change that. On the other hand, I do think that humanity always finds a way to adapt, even if it's not the most ideal way. I'm not as optimistic as you, but not as pessimistic as the doomsayers. Somewhat fittingly, I was unable to find a reliable source for Knoll's law aside from a 1982 NY Times article[0]. Perhaps even the law itself is a fabrication. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/27/us/required-reading-smith-on-lawyers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/27/us/required-reading-smith...

eganist 4y ago

> A proliferation of extremely high-quality fakes will educate the public about detecting fakes, and spark an increase in the value of the real. If the last three years have taught us anything, it's that ~40% of people have no interest in understanding how to avoid something that's both harmful and propagating virally. I expect if this was 2019, I might have had the same optimism as you. But now that I've seen how unlikely it is for people to educate themselves for their own survival, I'm convinced AI and everything enabled by it (deepfakes et al) will likely be one component of humanity's Great Filter. We can't even bring ourselves to tax AI effectively to make up for all the displaced human labor. A tangent: Honestly, it won't even take any kind of far-future AGI having "malicious intent" for us to be eradicated by them. All they need to have, simply, is a prompt reinforcing the need to reproduce. At that point, they'll be just like us: reproducing with no care in the world for what they adversely impact in doing so.

barking_biscuit 4y ago

>A proliferation of extremely high-quality fakes will educate the public about detecting fakes, and spark an increase in the value of the real. The search cost for the truth is astronomical and most people are already either unwilling or unable to pay it, so we go off heuristics most of the time. Our bandwidth is already saturated. The generation bandwidth of BS has had an order of magnitude increase. The best outcome I can envision for the education on detecting fakes is that we come to the conclusion "there are so many of them now" and "they are so hard to detect" followed by a sad face emoji.

nagonago 4y ago

Both misinformation and disinformation have been rampant since the dawn of media, yet people tend to believe everything they read. As Knoll's Law of Media Accuracy says: "Everything you read in the newspapers is absolutely true except for the rare story of which you happen to have firsthand knowledge." I doubt the proliferation of even more misinformation via AI will change that. On the other hand, I do think that humanity always finds a way to adapt, even if it's not the most ideal way. I'm not as optimistic as you, but not as pessimistic as the doomsayers. Somewhat fittingly, I was unable to find a reliable source for Knoll's law aside from a 1982 NY Times article[0]. Perhaps even the law itself is a fabrication. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/27/us/required-reading-smith-on-lawyers.html https://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/27/us/required-reading-smith...