3 ms·
At the same time, you have to consider that if the same crooked reporter reported these leaks without providing any audio at all, or said they were emails, or t
by breuleux 3y ago
At the same time, you have to consider that if the same crooked reporter reported these leaks without providing any audio at all, or said they were emails, or texts, a large number of people would believe them anyway. You have to check what the delta is of people who would not have believed a plain text lie but would believe a video lie, and as deepfakes become more and more sophisticated in plain sight, that delta is bound to shrink.
I feel that ultimately the delta will become negligible, because the cognitive flaws that would push us to believe deepfakes at an era when anyone can create a deepfake of themselves in 30 seconds on a website (not now, but not long after they would be used for propaganda) are the same that currently push us to believe clear textual propaganda. If you don't fall for one, you won't fall for the other.
- CM30 3y agoDoesn't even need a crooked reporter, just a troll/extremist/propoganda creator and a news organisation without much interest in fact checking/research. In fact, forget deepfakes and disinformation campaigns. What should truly terrify people is how low the standards are for sourcing information in many media publications now. Oh sure, you could use AI to fake a video of Biden or Trump saying something controversial and send that in... or you could print out a document titled 'Trump's Super Secret Plan for World Domination!', take a photo of it on a mobile phone and send that into many outlets for much the same effect.