3 ms·

I guess the problem is when people don't realize it's fake. There is a lag between people who are familiar with this technology and those who are not. Edit: I

by drsopp 3y ago

I guess the problem is when people don't realize it's fake. There is a lag between people who are familiar with this technology and those who are not. Edit: I worked in school over a decade, and I can definitely see the huge potential for harm here with digital bullying.

lynx23 3y ago
The problem with bullying is the bullying itself, and not the specific way in which it is performed. It does not matter if you are being bullied old-fashioned analog, or hypermodern digital. The issue is that we basically have never thought of a reliable way to protect children from other children, in the age category where it is necessary. It is one of those semi-taboo topics where we actually prefer to look away and hope a solution will solidify on its own. Because we dont want to accept that children can be cruel assholes. At least not our children! Maybe the spoiled brat from the neighborhood, yeah, that child is... But not mine! My child is sweet honey, the best human ever conceived...
Xenoamorphous 3y ago
I also see the opposite happening: real footage of someone doing something nasty, and claiming it's a deepfake. If we get to the point where deepfakes are indistinguishable from the real thing, does it mean footage can no longer be used in court?
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  That'll be an interesting one to see play out. Thing is though, forgeries / fake evidence in the form of image and video editing isn't anything new - how is that challenged in court these days? I can imagine they have an expert witness testify that it's fake or not, but they can and have been wrong as well.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  > does it mean footage can no longer be used in court? Perhaps we'll see the rise of cryptographically verified videos: the camera signs the output of their sensors, proving it was captured from the real world.
  - didntcheck 3y ago
    That's been suggested periodically for many years, but I'm not sure I'd ever trust it. I think people would always find a way to spoof the inputs, even if it's just by the analogue hole of focusing on a screen. This would be non-trivial, but both private and state espionage groups would be willing to pour a lot of money into the prospect of being able to have a "undeniably real" doctored image

by drsopp 3y ago

lynx23 3y ago

The problem with bullying is the bullying itself, and not the specific way in which it is performed. It does not matter if you are being bullied old-fashioned analog, or hypermodern digital. The issue is that we basically have never thought of a reliable way to protect children from other children, in the age category where it is necessary. It is one of those semi-taboo topics where we actually prefer to look away and hope a solution will solidify on its own. Because we dont want to accept that children can be cruel assholes. At least not our children! Maybe the spoiled brat from the neighborhood, yeah, that child is... But not mine! My child is sweet honey, the best human ever conceived...

Xenoamorphous 3y ago

I also see the opposite happening: real footage of someone doing something nasty, and claiming it's a deepfake. If we get to the point where deepfakes are indistinguishable from the real thing, does it mean footage can no longer be used in court?

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
That'll be an interesting one to see play out. Thing is though, forgeries / fake evidence in the form of image and video editing isn't anything new - how is that challenged in court these days? I can imagine they have an expert witness testify that it's fake or not, but they can and have been wrong as well.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> does it mean footage can no longer be used in court? Perhaps we'll see the rise of cryptographically verified videos: the camera signs the output of their sensors, proving it was captured from the real world.
- didntcheck 3y ago
  That's been suggested periodically for many years, but I'm not sure I'd ever trust it. I think people would always find a way to spoof the inputs, even if it's just by the analogue hole of focusing on a screen. This would be non-trivial, but both private and state espionage groups would be willing to pour a lot of money into the prospect of being able to have a "undeniably real" doctored image