6 ms·

Do deepfake videos undermine our epistemic trust?

36 points by Manheim 3y ago

Manheim 3y ago
[flagged]
- sltkr 3y ago
  Can we please get rid of these shit quality bot comments? This reply is obviously generated by an AI. You can tell from the fact that the summary is shit (you're better off reading the abstract of the article), and that it was posted 2 minutes after the link. There is no way a human can read the article in two minutes (just typing the 140 words in the comment would take must people over 1 minute). edit: I realize now that the commenter was the same user that submitted the link, so maybe they're not a bot and they simply pre-prepared their comment. Still, I think the summary was quite bad, and it's also unneeded, since the posted article has a perfectly serviceable abstract right at the top. Just let your submission speak for itself! Providing a tl;dr as a first comment just encourages people to comment without reading the actual article.
  - looping8 3y ago
    Not saying you are wrong but the comment is from the OP, who, I'd hope, read the article before posting. They could have easily read it, typed up the comment and then posted.
    - sltkr 3y ago
      Fair point, I just realized that myself and edited my comment accordingly.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    >Just let your submission speak for itself! Providing a tl;dr as a first comment just encourages people to comment without reading the actual article. I honestly think that ship has sailed. So it's probably better to post a well thought out tl;dr as the first comment than nothing at all. Otherwise agree.
    - pvg 3y ago
      The ML ones are disallowed and get flagged, the other ones are mostly discouraged and moderated away. So you're almost certainly not better off posting a TLDR.
    - Manheim 3y ago
      It was meant to give people an interest to read the whole article. It is a long read after all. But you are absolutely right, the effect could be the opposite. Let it be a note to my future self to not make TL;DR's when sharing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mouse_ 3y ago
Not to discount the questions and dangers surrounding advancements in AI, but the internet has always been full of convincing bullshit. I think it's a good thing that more people than ever are becoming habitually skeptical of what they see online.
- corethree 3y ago
  It's impossible for someone to be skeptical of everything. People pick and choose what to trust based off of available superficial information. This superficial information is becoming harder and harder to interpret. If you follow the trendline we will approach a world where will skeptical of every single thing you see on the internet with no way of verifying the truth. For example, I told an AI to write this for me. And I also told the AI to insert some common spelling mistakes and grammatical mistakes to make it look real. Then I told the AI to lie to the best of it's ability and say something untrue and manipulative. you are reading the output of what that AI wrote right now.
  - kukkeliskuu 3y ago
    It is impossible to be analytically skeptical of everything, because it takes lots of energy to question the facts behind a narrative. But when you dig deeper in the public narrative of many subjects you find out that the narrative is misleading and sometimes even totally wrong on almost any subject you look into. By this I mean that for example anything the newspapers write about on any subject that you know deeply about, they get wrong on some very important aspect. You just extrapolate this experience over all the possible subjects. Then there comes a moment of realisation that you are spending lots of energy in maintaining all these public narratives in your head. And as the narratives are misleading or wrong, they are blinding you from seeing some of the facts. And as a consequence you do not see the situation as clearly as you could. And you may start clearing your mind off these narratives, releasing the energy you are spending to maintain them. And then you might be able to develop a sense of "smell" or intuition when people are not being honest, but are trying to manipulate you or sell you some idea. And this helps in recognising the situations without the need to spend energy on being analytically skeptical.
idontwantthis 3y ago
What doesn’t scare me about this is what Trump has demonstrated so clearly: lying with zero evidence to back you up is so much easier than faking the evidence. And it’s more effective because it’s impossible to argue against a reality that doesn’t exist.
- MarcoZavala 3y ago
  [dead]
- Timwi 3y ago
  I'm not sure I understand why it's more effective. I agree with you that it is, but I don't get why so many people are happy to rally behind a cause whose foundation is obvious lies.
  - Swenrekcah 3y ago
    I think some of it comes from a want to belong. It is in some ways like religion - people probably realise the scriptures aren't always factually correct but they like the shared suspension of disbelief. Also some of it probably has to do with generally feeling bad, anxious or uncertain about the future. Some might take solace in inflicting those same feelings upon others who seem to have it better. But it is also the case that 'the other side' often rallies behind obvious nonsense dictated by the identity politics of the day (like IQ isn't real, math is racist, etc.). There are probably similar feelings at play there, a want for belonging of some sort.
- dimgl 3y ago
  This is a bad faith argument. Your comment has nothing to do with deepfakes.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kukkeliskuu 3y ago
It seems to me that we have already lost most of our epistemic trust. Some people blame the troll farms, AI bots and baseless accusations of fake news. Others blame biased fact checkers, politicized media and philosophical relativism. And these groups blame each other.
- drakenot 3y ago
  Neal Stephenson's Anathem (2008) has a great throwaway section on this: > “Early in the Reticulum-thousands of years ago-it became almost useless because it was cluttered with faulty, obsolete, or downright misleading information,” Sammann said. > “Crap, you once called it,” I reminded him. > “Yes-a technical term. So crap filtering became important. Businesses were built around it. Some of those businesses came up with a clever plan to make more money: they poisoned the well. They began to put crap on the Reticulum deliberately, forcing people to use their products to filter that crap back out. They created syndevs whose sole purpose was to spew crap into the Reticulum. But it had to be good crap.” > “What is good crap?” Arsibalt asked in a politely incredulous tone. > “Well, bad crap would be an unformatted document consisting of random letters. Good crap would be a beautifully typeset, well-written document that contained a hundred correct, verifiable sentences and one that was subtly false. It’s a lot harder to generate good crap. At first they had to hire humans to churn it out. They mostly did it by taking legitimate documents and inserting errors-swapping one name for another, say. But it didn’t really take off until the military got interested.” > “As a tactic for planting misinformation in the enemy’s reticules, you mean,” Osa said. “This I know about. You are referring to the Artificial Inanity programs of the mid-First Millennium A.R.” > “Exactly!” Sammann said. “Artificial Inanity systems of enormous sophistication and power were built for exactly the purpose Fraa Osa has mentioned. In no time at all, the praxis leaked to the commercial sector and spread to the Rampant Orphan Botnet Ecologies. Never mind. The point is that there was a sort of Dark Age on the Reticulum that lasted until my Ita forerunners were able to bring matters in hand.”
  - f1shy 3y ago
    This is a gem! Thank you for sharing.
  - 3y ago
jruohonen 3y ago
From the paper's abstract: "We found that much of the misinformation in our dataset came from labelling real media as deepfakes." That's basically the liar's dividend at work.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Roark66 3y ago
What epistemic trust? Perhaps in the west where it wasn't 100% obvious everything media says is a lie. In the countries of the ex-Soviet block everyone is very aware of the propaganda back then and now. (propaganda is not just lies - every form of distribution of information with a goal to influence the receiving person is propaganda, propaganda can be true or false, it can be true and twisted into a different meaning, it can be deliberately false to out across a counterpoint etc). In short this is why people exposed to propaganda for decades are inclined to trust full length videos recorded by identifiable individuals on the ground a 100x more than any editorial on TV or uploaded by any organisation. This is why telegram and in a way twitter exploded as a source of news during this war. Is it possible to insert deep fakes in there? Sure, but the technology is defonot good enough to not be able to tell it apart.
- NotGMan 3y ago
  This. Obviously it got downvoted to "grey". I'm always fascinated that hacker news, a forum for many developers and other, what I'd assume, "higher intelligent" people, fails to see this.
  - fredoliveira 3y ago
    Intelligent people stay away from sentences such as: > 100% obvious everything media says is a lie
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      It's an assumption, in light of which you interpret information. It's really puzzling, why Americans so zealously trust everything - MSM, politicians, advertisements, corporations, economists, youtube, shitty software, ecelebs, everything.
      - ProxCoques 3y ago
        Epistemic trust essentially means assuming good faith unless shown otherwise. If societies didn't have that, they wouldn't function (or even be able to have become societies in the first place). Like morality - human society would not have been able to survive if everyone simply acted in their own self interest.
torginus 3y ago
Dunno, when people take Twitter/FB Messenger screenshots (or out of context photos) as ground truth, I'm not sure how convincing deepfakes would undermine trust in ways trust wasn't undermined before. And if you were sufficiently motivated before, you could photoshop people into compromising pictures without the aid of AI.
- spiderfarmer 3y ago
  Most people who are overly susceptible to fake facts already pick and choose facts that fit their believe system. People still believe that someone walked on water and rose from the dead based on stories and a book that was written a long time after it 'happened'.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  You can create drama/panic/propaganda in a more meaningful way than "screenshots" or news articles with more lasting effects. And it is going to be more interesting when we will have the ability to manipulate videos (near-)realtime.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- chx 3y ago
  This is not the issue. It was near impossible to create convincing fake videos of people speaking ( https://youtu.be/X17yrEV5sl4 https://youtu.be/X17yrEV5sl4 ) and so even those who would not take an altered screenshot at face value might be more inclined to believe one such.
dusted 3y ago
Do movies ? It's not like deepfake videos can do something hollywood can't. The answer should have been yes after about Terminator 2 was released, and has nothing to do with AI.
- cocacola1 3y ago
  Movies are heavily marketed as movies, so you know what you’re watching. If you don’t, I imagine the credits at the beginning and end, the camera angles, stilted dialogue, the branded YouTube channel, etc. clue you in.
- M4v3R 3y ago
  It’s different now, because back then to create a movie scene like from Terminator 2 I would need millions of dollars in budget and specialized equipment. Today one person with a consumer graphics card can do this. Which means anyone with any agenda can pump out fake videos and even if 90% of people will not fall for them, the rest will.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
verisimi 3y ago
The problem with any form of trust is: who has the yardstick of truth to confirm or deny whatever-it-is? In the final analysis, one can only say 'one knows' about those things one has personally verified to be true. The rest is hypothetical.
topaztee 3y ago
Is there some hidden signature behind this AI generated content so we can differentiate whats real and what isnt?
- nurettin 3y ago
  Just eyeballing it for a minute works for me. But people are prejudiced and their opinions will always cloud their judgement, no matter what the evidence or counter-evidence is. So overall, nothing will ever change.
  - martin-adams 3y ago
    I feel that the being able to tell by studying it for a bit is only going to get harder and harder as the technology advances
- ghosty141 3y ago
  Currently there are tiny imperfectios but I believe in 10 or 20 years they will be indestinguishable with the naked eye.
- 22c 3y ago
  Short answer, no, there's not. Adversarial AI could be used to find deepfakes, but then AI will be trained on those adversaries etc. There is no real solution to this problem, but my thoughts on the matter are that in the future it will be common for cameras or recording devices to have a cryptographic signing key and the resulting footage would contain a signature. This would allow news outlets to prove to their audiences that the footage is untampered with. It could also be chained so that officially licensed syndicates could also offer provenance to their audiences, or that clips/re-encodes of the same footage could link back to an original recording. This doesn't stop organisations or individuals from recording a deepfake, but it would put their reputation on the line (similar to how we have certificate authorities signing SSL certificates now). It's up to you then if you want to trust the footage provided by AP vs. the footage provided by Infowars.
  - 3y ago
coldtea 3y ago
Does the pope shit in the woods? Because he sure does in a deepfake I saw.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
globular-toast 3y ago
It recently occurred to me that future generations just won't really believe anything they see. Did you ever believe a painting must have been accurate reflection of reality? It is, in fact, us that are unusual in that, for a short few decades, we actually believed photographs (and other recordings) to be indisputably true. Deepfakes are just resetting it back to the way it was before photographs. Is this a bad thing? Is the photograph really a cornerstone of our civilisation? It's not even just about deepfakes. Photographs taken by must smartphones are already heavily embellished by default. With just a few extra taps you can remove unwanted members of the public from your pictures. It's all fake, and the generations growing up with it will understand photographs just like we understand paintings. Nice, but not true.
nathias 3y ago
I hope so, because the trust was never justified. Maybe we'll start actually judging the content of arguments instead of just using easily exploitable heuristics.
incomingpain 3y ago
So I recently came to the realization I'm probably autistic. Did you know, autistic people and advertisements don't go together: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-fallible-mind/201708/why-advertising-falls-flat-in-individuals-autism https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-fallible-mind/20... In my life, I've always found advertising toxic fake and kind of offensive? Sometimes I would even personally boycott the product being advertised. Like, most advertisements, especially super bowl ones are entirely CGI these days. I used to try to spot the CGI game but now its more of a 'spot the not cgi' Then when it comes to deepfakes and I just see right through them. It's black/white, its like watching anime and thinking its real life or something. How can something like that damage trust? It doesnt bother me in the slightest.

36 points by Manheim 3y ago

Manheim 3y ago

[flagged]

sltkr 3y ago
Can we please get rid of these shit quality bot comments? This reply is obviously generated by an AI. You can tell from the fact that the summary is shit (you're better off reading the abstract of the article), and that it was posted 2 minutes after the link. There is no way a human can read the article in two minutes (just typing the 140 words in the comment would take must people over 1 minute). edit: I realize now that the commenter was the same user that submitted the link, so maybe they're not a bot and they simply pre-prepared their comment. Still, I think the summary was quite bad, and it's also unneeded, since the posted article has a perfectly serviceable abstract right at the top. Just let your submission speak for itself! Providing a tl;dr as a first comment just encourages people to comment without reading the actual article.
- looping8 3y ago
  Not saying you are wrong but the comment is from the OP, who, I'd hope, read the article before posting. They could have easily read it, typed up the comment and then posted.
  - sltkr 3y ago
    Fair point, I just realized that myself and edited my comment accordingly.
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  >Just let your submission speak for itself! Providing a tl;dr as a first comment just encourages people to comment without reading the actual article. I honestly think that ship has sailed. So it's probably better to post a well thought out tl;dr as the first comment than nothing at all. Otherwise agree.
  - pvg 3y ago
    The ML ones are disallowed and get flagged, the other ones are mostly discouraged and moderated away. So you're almost certainly not better off posting a TLDR.
  - Manheim 3y ago
    It was meant to give people an interest to read the whole article. It is a long read after all. But you are absolutely right, the effect could be the opposite. Let it be a note to my future self to not make TL;DR's when sharing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mouse_ 3y ago

Not to discount the questions and dangers surrounding advancements in AI, but the internet has always been full of convincing bullshit. I think it's a good thing that more people than ever are becoming habitually skeptical of what they see online.

corethree 3y ago
It's impossible for someone to be skeptical of everything. People pick and choose what to trust based off of available superficial information. This superficial information is becoming harder and harder to interpret. If you follow the trendline we will approach a world where will skeptical of every single thing you see on the internet with no way of verifying the truth. For example, I told an AI to write this for me. And I also told the AI to insert some common spelling mistakes and grammatical mistakes to make it look real. Then I told the AI to lie to the best of it's ability and say something untrue and manipulative. you are reading the output of what that AI wrote right now.
- kukkeliskuu 3y ago
  It is impossible to be analytically skeptical of everything, because it takes lots of energy to question the facts behind a narrative. But when you dig deeper in the public narrative of many subjects you find out that the narrative is misleading and sometimes even totally wrong on almost any subject you look into. By this I mean that for example anything the newspapers write about on any subject that you know deeply about, they get wrong on some very important aspect. You just extrapolate this experience over all the possible subjects. Then there comes a moment of realisation that you are spending lots of energy in maintaining all these public narratives in your head. And as the narratives are misleading or wrong, they are blinding you from seeing some of the facts. And as a consequence you do not see the situation as clearly as you could. And you may start clearing your mind off these narratives, releasing the energy you are spending to maintain them. And then you might be able to develop a sense of "smell" or intuition when people are not being honest, but are trying to manipulate you or sell you some idea. And this helps in recognising the situations without the need to spend energy on being analytically skeptical.

idontwantthis 3y ago

What doesn’t scare me about this is what Trump has demonstrated so clearly: lying with zero evidence to back you up is so much easier than faking the evidence. And it’s more effective because it’s impossible to argue against a reality that doesn’t exist.

MarcoZavala 3y ago
[dead]
Timwi 3y ago
I'm not sure I understand why it's more effective. I agree with you that it is, but I don't get why so many people are happy to rally behind a cause whose foundation is obvious lies.
- Swenrekcah 3y ago
  I think some of it comes from a want to belong. It is in some ways like religion - people probably realise the scriptures aren't always factually correct but they like the shared suspension of disbelief. Also some of it probably has to do with generally feeling bad, anxious or uncertain about the future. Some might take solace in inflicting those same feelings upon others who seem to have it better. But it is also the case that 'the other side' often rallies behind obvious nonsense dictated by the identity politics of the day (like IQ isn't real, math is racist, etc.). There are probably similar feelings at play there, a want for belonging of some sort.
dimgl 3y ago
This is a bad faith argument. Your comment has nothing to do with deepfakes.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kukkeliskuu 3y ago

It seems to me that we have already lost most of our epistemic trust. Some people blame the troll farms, AI bots and baseless accusations of fake news. Others blame biased fact checkers, politicized media and philosophical relativism. And these groups blame each other.

drakenot 3y ago
Neal Stephenson's Anathem (2008) has a great throwaway section on this: > “Early in the Reticulum-thousands of years ago-it became almost useless because it was cluttered with faulty, obsolete, or downright misleading information,” Sammann said. > “Crap, you once called it,” I reminded him. > “Yes-a technical term. So crap filtering became important. Businesses were built around it. Some of those businesses came up with a clever plan to make more money: they poisoned the well. They began to put crap on the Reticulum deliberately, forcing people to use their products to filter that crap back out. They created syndevs whose sole purpose was to spew crap into the Reticulum. But it had to be good crap.” > “What is good crap?” Arsibalt asked in a politely incredulous tone. > “Well, bad crap would be an unformatted document consisting of random letters. Good crap would be a beautifully typeset, well-written document that contained a hundred correct, verifiable sentences and one that was subtly false. It’s a lot harder to generate good crap. At first they had to hire humans to churn it out. They mostly did it by taking legitimate documents and inserting errors-swapping one name for another, say. But it didn’t really take off until the military got interested.” > “As a tactic for planting misinformation in the enemy’s reticules, you mean,” Osa said. “This I know about. You are referring to the Artificial Inanity programs of the mid-First Millennium A.R.” > “Exactly!” Sammann said. “Artificial Inanity systems of enormous sophistication and power were built for exactly the purpose Fraa Osa has mentioned. In no time at all, the praxis leaked to the commercial sector and spread to the Rampant Orphan Botnet Ecologies. Never mind. The point is that there was a sort of Dark Age on the Reticulum that lasted until my Ita forerunners were able to bring matters in hand.”
- f1shy 3y ago
  This is a gem! Thank you for sharing.
- 3y ago

jruohonen 3y ago

From the paper's abstract: "We found that much of the misinformation in our dataset came from labelling real media as deepfakes." That's basically the liar's dividend at work.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Roark66 3y ago

What epistemic trust? Perhaps in the west where it wasn't 100% obvious everything media says is a lie. In the countries of the ex-Soviet block everyone is very aware of the propaganda back then and now. (propaganda is not just lies - every form of distribution of information with a goal to influence the receiving person is propaganda, propaganda can be true or false, it can be true and twisted into a different meaning, it can be deliberately false to out across a counterpoint etc). In short this is why people exposed to propaganda for decades are inclined to trust full length videos recorded by identifiable individuals on the ground a 100x more than any editorial on TV or uploaded by any organisation. This is why telegram and in a way twitter exploded as a source of news during this war. Is it possible to insert deep fakes in there? Sure, but the technology is defonot good enough to not be able to tell it apart.

NotGMan 3y ago
This. Obviously it got downvoted to "grey". I'm always fascinated that hacker news, a forum for many developers and other, what I'd assume, "higher intelligent" people, fails to see this.
- fredoliveira 3y ago
  Intelligent people stay away from sentences such as: > 100% obvious everything media says is a lie
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    It's an assumption, in light of which you interpret information. It's really puzzling, why Americans so zealously trust everything - MSM, politicians, advertisements, corporations, economists, youtube, shitty software, ecelebs, everything.
    - ProxCoques 3y ago
      Epistemic trust essentially means assuming good faith unless shown otherwise. If societies didn't have that, they wouldn't function (or even be able to have become societies in the first place). Like morality - human society would not have been able to survive if everyone simply acted in their own self interest.

torginus 3y ago

Dunno, when people take Twitter/FB Messenger screenshots (or out of context photos) as ground truth, I'm not sure how convincing deepfakes would undermine trust in ways trust wasn't undermined before. And if you were sufficiently motivated before, you could photoshop people into compromising pictures without the aid of AI.

spiderfarmer 3y ago
Most people who are overly susceptible to fake facts already pick and choose facts that fit their believe system. People still believe that someone walked on water and rose from the dead based on stories and a book that was written a long time after it 'happened'.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
You can create drama/panic/propaganda in a more meaningful way than "screenshots" or news articles with more lasting effects. And it is going to be more interesting when we will have the ability to manipulate videos (near-)realtime.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
chx 3y ago
This is not the issue. It was near impossible to create convincing fake videos of people speaking ( https://youtu.be/X17yrEV5sl4 https://youtu.be/X17yrEV5sl4 ) and so even those who would not take an altered screenshot at face value might be more inclined to believe one such.

dusted 3y ago

Do movies ? It's not like deepfake videos can do something hollywood can't. The answer should have been yes after about Terminator 2 was released, and has nothing to do with AI.

cocacola1 3y ago
Movies are heavily marketed as movies, so you know what you’re watching. If you don’t, I imagine the credits at the beginning and end, the camera angles, stilted dialogue, the branded YouTube channel, etc. clue you in.
M4v3R 3y ago
It’s different now, because back then to create a movie scene like from Terminator 2 I would need millions of dollars in budget and specialized equipment. Today one person with a consumer graphics card can do this. Which means anyone with any agenda can pump out fake videos and even if 90% of people will not fall for them, the rest will.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

verisimi 3y ago

The problem with any form of trust is: who has the yardstick of truth to confirm or deny whatever-it-is? In the final analysis, one can only say 'one knows' about those things one has personally verified to be true. The rest is hypothetical.

topaztee 3y ago

Is there some hidden signature behind this AI generated content so we can differentiate whats real and what isnt?

nurettin 3y ago
Just eyeballing it for a minute works for me. But people are prejudiced and their opinions will always cloud their judgement, no matter what the evidence or counter-evidence is. So overall, nothing will ever change.
- martin-adams 3y ago
  I feel that the being able to tell by studying it for a bit is only going to get harder and harder as the technology advances
ghosty141 3y ago
Currently there are tiny imperfectios but I believe in 10 or 20 years they will be indestinguishable with the naked eye.
22c 3y ago
Short answer, no, there's not. Adversarial AI could be used to find deepfakes, but then AI will be trained on those adversaries etc. There is no real solution to this problem, but my thoughts on the matter are that in the future it will be common for cameras or recording devices to have a cryptographic signing key and the resulting footage would contain a signature. This would allow news outlets to prove to their audiences that the footage is untampered with. It could also be chained so that officially licensed syndicates could also offer provenance to their audiences, or that clips/re-encodes of the same footage could link back to an original recording. This doesn't stop organisations or individuals from recording a deepfake, but it would put their reputation on the line (similar to how we have certificate authorities signing SSL certificates now). It's up to you then if you want to trust the footage provided by AP vs. the footage provided by Infowars.
- 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago

Does the pope shit in the woods? Because he sure does in a deepfake I saw.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

globular-toast 3y ago

It recently occurred to me that future generations just won't really believe anything they see. Did you ever believe a painting must have been accurate reflection of reality? It is, in fact, us that are unusual in that, for a short few decades, we actually believed photographs (and other recordings) to be indisputably true. Deepfakes are just resetting it back to the way it was before photographs. Is this a bad thing? Is the photograph really a cornerstone of our civilisation? It's not even just about deepfakes. Photographs taken by must smartphones are already heavily embellished by default. With just a few extra taps you can remove unwanted members of the public from your pictures. It's all fake, and the generations growing up with it will understand photographs just like we understand paintings. Nice, but not true.

nathias 3y ago

I hope so, because the trust was never justified. Maybe we'll start actually judging the content of arguments instead of just using easily exploitable heuristics.

incomingpain 3y ago

So I recently came to the realization I'm probably autistic. Did you know, autistic people and advertisements don't go together: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-fallible-mind/201708/why-advertising-falls-flat-in-individuals-autism https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-fallible-mind/20... In my life, I've always found advertising toxic fake and kind of offensive? Sometimes I would even personally boycott the product being advertised. Like, most advertisements, especially super bowl ones are entirely CGI these days. I used to try to spot the CGI game but now its more of a 'spot the not cgi' Then when it comes to deepfakes and I just see right through them. It's black/white, its like watching anime and thinking its real life or something. How can something like that damage trust? It doesnt bother me in the slightest.