3 ms·

I don't agree. With ML tools it is possible to make sweeping changes to images and text that are often impossible to detect. combined with the centralisation of

I don't agree. With ML tools it is possible to make sweeping changes to images and text that are often impossible to detect. combined with the centralisation of most online activities, large players could alter the past. Imagine facebook decides to subtly change every public post and comment to show some particular person or cause in a better light.

crazygringo 3y ago
If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare. We have tons of credible archived sources owned by different institutions. And these sources are successful in large part due to their credibility and trustworthiness. It's just not economically rational for any of them to start "altering the past", and if they did, they'd be caught basically immediately and their reputation would be ruined. This isn't an ML/tooling question, it's a question of humans and reputation and economic incentives.
- jononor 3y ago
  The suggested large player was Facebook and Facebook posts. Which trustworthy independent sources of authenticity do we have for that? I do not think those you mention reach inside their walled garden?
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    First, why would Facebook do that? What economic incentive would there ever be, that would outweigh the loss of trust and reputation hit that would ensue? Second, people take screenshots of Facebook posts all the time. They're everywhere. If you suddenly have a ton of people with timestamped screenshots from their phones that show Facebook has changed content, that's exactly the kind of story journalists will pounce on and verify. The idea that Facebook could or would engage in widespread manipulation of past content and not get caught is just not realistic.
- ysleepy 3y ago
  You seem eager to exclude the possibility. Maybe it is improbable, but there now is the technical possibility which was not there before. It is valuable to explore that possibility and maybe even work to prevent such a use. I would be interested in a ledger of cryptographically signed records of important public information such as newspapers, government communication and intellectual discourse. Your argument that large social media will behave rationally is not backed up by reality. Consider Musk and Twitter.
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  > If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare. Detection doesn't really matter, because people are too lazy to validate the facts, and reporters are not interested in reporting them. AI is simply another tool to manipulate people, like Wikipedia, Reddit.com, Twitter, or any other BS psuedo-authority. Think someone will actually crack open a book to prove the AI wrong? Not a chance.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > and reporters are not interested in reporting them You really think that if the NYT started altering its past stories, other publications would just... ignore it? It would be a front-page scandal that the WaPo would be delighted to report on. As well as a hundred other news publications. Thankfully.
    - ysleepy 3y ago
      That is maybe true for a small percentage of stories. You are also reducing this argument to the most construed straw man instead of engaging with the idea in earnest. If you can't alter world news headlines, you can still alter the tone of the article. If you can't alter front page news, you still can alter the remaining 95% of news. Influencing public opinion is more subtle than the one important headline per day. You are also ignoring the fact that news sites regularly edit published articles already, from fixed typos to corrections to large re-editings.
      - crazygringo 3y ago
        You seem to be misunderstanding. This isn't about a small percentage of stories, it's not about tone, it's the fact that if the NYT ever did this even once with the intention to truly "alter the past" it would be a major scandal. And obviously things like corrections or taking down libelous content aren't included. So no, I'm not constructing any kind of straw man here. I'm saying that the threat of subtly nefariously "altering the past" isn't realistic because it would be caught and exposed and there's no financial motivation to do it in the first place.
- cooper_ganglia 3y ago
  Your solution, in the case of trusted sources altering content to fit a particular worldview, is to look at other "trusted" sources. I think that therein lies the problem. I believe the real danger isn't people being convinced of something untrue. I think the real danger is the apathy that builds up as people can no longer reliably distinguish the truth, and they give up on sifting through it altogether, instead accepting "their truth". The vast majority of people simply don't care enough to verify sources. This is already happening without generative AI, and this new stuff is only going to speed things up exponentially.

crazygringo 3y ago

If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare. We have tons of credible archived sources owned by different institutions. And these sources are successful in large part due to their credibility and trustworthiness. It's just not economically rational for any of them to start "altering the past", and if they did, they'd be caught basically immediately and their reputation would be ruined. This isn't an ML/tooling question, it's a question of humans and reputation and economic incentives.

jononor 3y ago
The suggested large player was Facebook and Facebook posts. Which trustworthy independent sources of authenticity do we have for that? I do not think those you mention reach inside their walled garden?
- crazygringo 3y ago
  First, why would Facebook do that? What economic incentive would there ever be, that would outweigh the loss of trust and reputation hit that would ensue? Second, people take screenshots of Facebook posts all the time. They're everywhere. If you suddenly have a ton of people with timestamped screenshots from their phones that show Facebook has changed content, that's exactly the kind of story journalists will pounce on and verify. The idea that Facebook could or would engage in widespread manipulation of past content and not get caught is just not realistic.
ysleepy 3y ago
You seem eager to exclude the possibility. Maybe it is improbable, but there now is the technical possibility which was not there before. It is valuable to explore that possibility and maybe even work to prevent such a use. I would be interested in a ledger of cryptographically signed records of important public information such as newspapers, government communication and intellectual discourse. Your argument that large social media will behave rationally is not backed up by reality. Consider Musk and Twitter.
oceanplexian 3y ago
> If one "large player" like the NYT decides to "alter the past", you can compare with the WaPo or any other newspaper. You can compare with the Internet Archive. You can compare with microfiche. These aren't "impossible to detect", they're trivial to detect if you bother to compare. Detection doesn't really matter, because people are too lazy to validate the facts, and reporters are not interested in reporting them. AI is simply another tool to manipulate people, like Wikipedia, Reddit.com, Twitter, or any other BS psuedo-authority. Think someone will actually crack open a book to prove the AI wrong? Not a chance.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  > and reporters are not interested in reporting them You really think that if the NYT started altering its past stories, other publications would just... ignore it? It would be a front-page scandal that the WaPo would be delighted to report on. As well as a hundred other news publications. Thankfully.
  - ysleepy 3y ago
    That is maybe true for a small percentage of stories. You are also reducing this argument to the most construed straw man instead of engaging with the idea in earnest. If you can't alter world news headlines, you can still alter the tone of the article. If you can't alter front page news, you still can alter the remaining 95% of news. Influencing public opinion is more subtle than the one important headline per day. You are also ignoring the fact that news sites regularly edit published articles already, from fixed typos to corrections to large re-editings.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      You seem to be misunderstanding. This isn't about a small percentage of stories, it's not about tone, it's the fact that if the NYT ever did this even once with the intention to truly "alter the past" it would be a major scandal. And obviously things like corrections or taking down libelous content aren't included. So no, I'm not constructing any kind of straw man here. I'm saying that the threat of subtly nefariously "altering the past" isn't realistic because it would be caught and exposed and there's no financial motivation to do it in the first place.
cooper_ganglia 3y ago
Your solution, in the case of trusted sources altering content to fit a particular worldview, is to look at other "trusted" sources. I think that therein lies the problem. I believe the real danger isn't people being convinced of something untrue. I think the real danger is the apathy that builds up as people can no longer reliably distinguish the truth, and they give up on sifting through it altogether, instead accepting "their truth". The vast majority of people simply don't care enough to verify sources. This is already happening without generative AI, and this new stuff is only going to speed things up exponentially.