5 ms·

There is still progress to be made in boosting public awareness about the unique harm derived from AI-generated propaganda. For example, several mainstream news

There is still progress to be made in boosting public awareness about the unique harm derived from AI-generated propaganda. For example, several mainstream news outlets circulated the fake photos of Trump without overlaying a watermark of any kind to mitigate the potential harm that arises from the images being amplified without context – the threats these technologies pose is orders-of-magnitude greater in areas with less robust information spaces. In different information environments, such as those devoid of confidence in institutions, false evidence could have lasting repercussions before being disproven or even questioned. How is confidence in institutions going to be helpful? There is nobody above the temptation to abuse this power. The lesson from all "trusted" institutions over recent years should be there are no trusted institutions. AI is going to lead in societal unexpected consequences. Much of those I've elaborated in more detail here - https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things https://dakara.substack.com/p/ai-and-the-end-to-all-things

chrisco255 4y ago
Yeah I don't expect institutions to get their reputations back anytime soon. But I could imagine some distributed social networks coupled with cryptographic signatures and blockchains could be used to reach consensus on some ground truth. I think this already basically happens today, albeit informally. But the deep fakes make it possible to disrupt these networks. Cryptographic signatures could at least validate sources and by minting it on-chain you get a verified timestamp of the assertion or story.
standardUser 4y ago
That sounds like hyper-cynical hyperbole. For example, we trust the NY Times more than a random blog because the NYT has a long-established reputation for rarely printing inaccurate info and printing corrections when they do. And obviously it's not about trust vs no trust, it's always a matter of degrees.
- 13years 4y ago
  NYT is in the class of elite professional level bias and they certainly are not without their issues. This isn't to say they are more biased than other notable publications, but that they all have this quality and use professional language to sound authoritative on subject matters all while they still have the effect of changing opinion or manipulation of information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin... https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublis... All of the "trusted" sources have led us into wars and condoned the actions of bombings across the globe.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    Again, hyper-cynical words but not a lot of meaning. Gun to your head, would you choose the facts from the NYT or from Steve's Dipshit Blog? It is and always has been and always will be a matter of degrees.
    - 13years 4y ago
      False choice. Your implication would be that it is ok to lead us into foreign wars under false pretenses because statistically NYT might be better by some measure than Steve's Blog. I reject that notion in its entirety. It is precisely the reason we are in such a sad state of the world.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - standardUser 4y ago
        Like it or not, you do make judgments on the accuracy of trustworthiness of different sources of information. A reasonably reliable source of information can be subject to scrutiny and doubt, can have clear biases, can sometimes even be diametrically opposed to your own moral and ethical values. But we still make judgements on accuracy of trustworthiness, and act accordingly.

chrisco255 4y ago

Yeah I don't expect institutions to get their reputations back anytime soon. But I could imagine some distributed social networks coupled with cryptographic signatures and blockchains could be used to reach consensus on some ground truth. I think this already basically happens today, albeit informally. But the deep fakes make it possible to disrupt these networks. Cryptographic signatures could at least validate sources and by minting it on-chain you get a verified timestamp of the assertion or story.

standardUser 4y ago

That sounds like hyper-cynical hyperbole. For example, we trust the NY Times more than a random blog because the NYT has a long-established reputation for rarely printing inaccurate info and printing corrections when they do. And obviously it's not about trust vs no trust, it's always a matter of degrees.

13years 4y ago
NYT is in the class of elite professional level bias and they certainly are not without their issues. This isn't to say they are more biased than other notable publications, but that they all have this quality and use professional language to sound authoritative on subject matters all while they still have the effect of changing opinion or manipulation of information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involving_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversies_involvin... https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublis... All of the "trusted" sources have led us into wars and condoned the actions of bombings across the globe.
- standardUser 4y ago
  Again, hyper-cynical words but not a lot of meaning. Gun to your head, would you choose the facts from the NYT or from Steve's Dipshit Blog? It is and always has been and always will be a matter of degrees.
  - 13years 4y ago
    False choice. Your implication would be that it is ok to lead us into foreign wars under false pretenses because statistically NYT might be better by some measure than Steve's Blog. I reject that notion in its entirety. It is precisely the reason we are in such a sad state of the world.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - standardUser 4y ago
      Like it or not, you do make judgments on the accuracy of trustworthiness of different sources of information. A reasonably reliable source of information can be subject to scrutiny and doubt, can have clear biases, can sometimes even be diametrically opposed to your own moral and ethical values. But we still make judgements on accuracy of trustworthiness, and act accordingly.