4 ms·

The era of easy to reproduce but hard to fake media is actually the historical outlier. Before that media was written text and everyone knows anyone can make u

by api 3y ago

The era of easy to reproduce but hard to fake media is actually the historical outlier. Before that media was written text and everyone knows anyone can make up anything they want in that domain. Before that most people were illiterate so it didn’t matter much. Media wasn’t even much of a thing. We are headed for the post-media era when any arbitrary piece of media depicting anything can be created for little or no money by anyone with a computer. Nothing can be believed unless you were there or hear it from a known reliable source that was there. There’s going to be an ugly transition period when we have tons of people who haven’t gotten this memo yet. These people are going to be manipulated en masse with tremendous effectiveness. The push to deplatform misinformation is largely an attempt to stop this, but I think it’s futile. People just have to learn that media is dead and they can’t trust anything anymore. Hunter Thompson was ahead of his time. The only journalism worth doing in this future is individual gonzo journalism where you go and experience and tell the tale directly to your audience. That of course is vulnerable to spin by the teller, but so are all tales. It’s the best we have. Hopefully honest tellers of first hand tales will exist and get the reputation for honesty they deserve.

juujian 3y ago
> Before that media was written text and everyone knows anyone can make up anything they want in that domain. From what I gather, Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico was pretty much fanfiction (had somebody write?) about himself. This problem may be older than I thought.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Anyone doing history knows that all the sources are biased. You have to corroborate evidence and adjust for knowing the context in which the work was produced to determine how reliable it is.
  - api 3y ago
    Sure. But there was an era that lasted around 100 years when a photo alone was pretty reliable. Photos and especially videos were at least hard to fake. That era is over. Absolutely anything can be faked cheaply and easily.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      Really early photography was so poor compared to modern HD images that obvious fakes fooled "serious" people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies vs Arthur Conan Doyle, for example. But yes, it required more effort, and the effort reduction for fakes offered by AI is extremely powerful. (There is also the sad business of the 1932 Pulitzer https://www.pulitzer.org/news/statement-walter-duranty https://www.pulitzer.org/news/statement-walter-duranty )
    - lolinder 3y ago
      Photography has always been less reliable than many people thought it was, even without considering photo doctoring. Like statistics, the frame you choose in a photo can completely alter the story it's telling. It might be that entering an era where complete fabrication is easy will make people more resistant to the subtler tricks that have worked well hitherto. Bill Watterson had a series of strips about this in Calvin and Hobbes in 1992 [0]. > CALVIN: This is what I like about photography. People think cameras always tell the truth. > CALVIN: They think the camera is a dispassionate machine that records only facts. But really, cameras lie all the time! Select the facts and you manipulate the truth! > CALVIN: For example, I've cleared off this corner of my bed. Take a picture of me here, but crop out all the mess around me, so it looks like I keep my room tidy. > HOBBES: Is this even legal? > CALVIN: Wait, let me comb my hair and put on a tie. [0] This is the one I quoted, but the one before and after it are related: https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/09/17 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/09/17
breuleux 3y ago
> People just have to learn that media is dead and they can’t trust anything anymore. That is easy enough. What is difficult is to teach people they cannot just trust the people who tell them what they want to hear. > Hopefully honest tellers of first hand tales will exist and get the reputation for honesty they deserve. The odds of that are basically zero. There is no reliable way for people to know whether someone's tales are first hand or not, nor whether they are honest or not. If people stop consuming mainstream media and turn to gonzo journalism, powerful interests will manipulate information channels to direct eyeballs to the journalists they buy. The audience will not notice.

by api 3y ago

juujian 3y ago

> Before that media was written text and everyone knows anyone can make up anything they want in that domain. From what I gather, Julius Caesar's Commentarii de Bello Gallico was pretty much fanfiction (had somebody write?) about himself. This problem may be older than I thought.

pjc50 3y ago
Anyone doing history knows that all the sources are biased. You have to corroborate evidence and adjust for knowing the context in which the work was produced to determine how reliable it is.
- api 3y ago
  Sure. But there was an era that lasted around 100 years when a photo alone was pretty reliable. Photos and especially videos were at least hard to fake. That era is over. Absolutely anything can be faked cheaply and easily.
  - pjc50 3y ago
    Really early photography was so poor compared to modern HD images that obvious fakes fooled "serious" people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies vs Arthur Conan Doyle, for example. But yes, it required more effort, and the effort reduction for fakes offered by AI is extremely powerful. (There is also the sad business of the 1932 Pulitzer https://www.pulitzer.org/news/statement-walter-duranty https://www.pulitzer.org/news/statement-walter-duranty )
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Photography has always been less reliable than many people thought it was, even without considering photo doctoring. Like statistics, the frame you choose in a photo can completely alter the story it's telling. It might be that entering an era where complete fabrication is easy will make people more resistant to the subtler tricks that have worked well hitherto. Bill Watterson had a series of strips about this in Calvin and Hobbes in 1992 [0]. > CALVIN: This is what I like about photography. People think cameras always tell the truth. > CALVIN: They think the camera is a dispassionate machine that records only facts. But really, cameras lie all the time! Select the facts and you manipulate the truth! > CALVIN: For example, I've cleared off this corner of my bed. Take a picture of me here, but crop out all the mess around me, so it looks like I keep my room tidy. > HOBBES: Is this even legal? > CALVIN: Wait, let me comb my hair and put on a tie. [0] This is the one I quoted, but the one before and after it are related: https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/09/17 https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1992/09/17

breuleux 3y ago

> People just have to learn that media is dead and they can’t trust anything anymore. That is easy enough. What is difficult is to teach people they cannot just trust the people who tell them what they want to hear. > Hopefully honest tellers of first hand tales will exist and get the reputation for honesty they deserve. The odds of that are basically zero. There is no reliable way for people to know whether someone's tales are first hand or not, nor whether they are honest or not. If people stop consuming mainstream media and turn to gonzo journalism, powerful interests will manipulate information channels to direct eyeballs to the journalists they buy. The audience will not notice.