4 ms·

WW3 or some other high-intensity conflict could be potentially launched by highly coordinated deepfakes. Imagine creating some videos offending an aggressive re

WW3 or some other high-intensity conflict could be potentially launched by highly coordinated deepfakes. Imagine creating some videos offending an aggressive religion with many combatants or generating event videos that didn't happen and managing narrative as the uproar progresses etc.

jjj123 3y ago
None of that strikes me as meaningfully different than regular old propaganda.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Quantity and speed are qualities. Getting hit with a snowball could hurt you but is most apt to annoy you. Getting hit with an avalanche is apt to kill you. But hey, they are both snow, right?
  - redcobra762 3y ago
    However, it's unclear what plays the role of mass in this analogy.
    - Loughla 3y ago
      When it's one video of an angry mob killing bystanders, it's easy to dismiss. When it's hundreds, from different viewpoints, it's much harder.
      - redcobra762 3y ago
        ...so people are forging videos of mob justice? I'm not sure what your point is.
- baq 3y ago
  Computers are just fast calculators, right? Cars are just faster horses, right? Ships are just bigger canoes, right? Photographs are just quicker made paintings, right? Or… perhaps there is something different which makes practical what hasn’t been practical before? AI propaganda is the car of the propaganda horse of days past.
  - marcellus23 3y ago
    For all of human history, the only way to know how an event happened is to either have witnessed it yourself, or heard from someone else. It's only the last 100 years or so that we've been able to record exactly what happened as audio, video, or photography. And still, it's possible to doctor any of these. That's not to mention that you can craft excellent propaganda even by using this "real" recorded media, just by cherrypicking and presenting it in a certain context. I don't think AI generated media is going to a massive sea change in misinformation. edit: downvoters should reply instead
t_mann 3y ago
I'm not denying that and I am concerned about that possibility. The thing is, I don't think you need deep or any fakes at all for that. What it takes are people willing to believe lies and consume hatred (fwiw, WWII was based on huge lies that didn't need much forgery). The more people are questioning hatred they're being fed, the better of a chance we have.
- baq 3y ago
  People believing lies or not isn’t the problem. The problem is that lie to truth ratio, admittedly not low enough even today, will rapidly approach 1. Finding anything trustworthy will be impractical, so people will stop trying. This is very scary. Being able to tell what’s true underpins western democracies. With everyone having plausible deniability from everything we’re going to have to… change things.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    People to people information from direct witnesses will go up in value because faking physical environments is expensive, while untrusted or unverified sources will become pretty much useless. In person settings will matter more again - back to older models in a way.
  - t_mann 3y ago
    I don't think that needs to be true, though. Let's go with the UK since the article mentions the British PM, there are trustable sources like BBC and other media whose journalists can verify events on scene can work with trusted photographers, have contacts with whom to cross-check claims,... Yeah, some hoaxes will make it through the process, but some will be rectified later, and I don't see the ratio approaching 1. And those media are not hard to find. Taking the example from the article, there's no sustained uncertainty about whether the PM endorses a get-rich-quick scheme, and I don't see that coming, no matter how good the fakes become.
    - ejb999 3y ago
      >> trustable sources like BBC and other media whose journalists can verify events on scene can work with trusted photographers, have contacts with whom to cross-check claims They could, but do they? Evidence says no - they are perfectly happen to run with lies if it fits their narrative - and then weeks later, tucked away someplace, issue a retraction - after the damage is done. The BBC has an agenda, FOX news has an agenda, CNN has an agenda, MSNBC has an agenda, PBS has an agenda - they are all perfectly willing to lie to gather clicks or eyeballs - not sure AI is going to meaningfully change anything in that regard.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
overvale 3y ago
Ever seen the movie Wag the Dog?
wolverine876 3y ago
Lots of wars started that way before AI: Spanish-American ('remember the Maine!'), Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), Iraq (nuclear weapons program), etc. AI would seem to make it worse. I think it will also get worse because warmongers can automate propaganda and, with social media, reach people directly.
onthecanposting 3y ago
I think misinformation is already out there. I can only guess what extent to which common knowledge on world events is false, but it's not zero. There is an interesting, though not that academically rigorous body of internet analysis on things like Pallywood and the Charles Jaco bluescreen video from the Gulf War that are a good starting point.

jjj123 3y ago

None of that strikes me as meaningfully different than regular old propaganda.

pixl97 3y ago
Quantity and speed are qualities. Getting hit with a snowball could hurt you but is most apt to annoy you. Getting hit with an avalanche is apt to kill you. But hey, they are both snow, right?
- redcobra762 3y ago
  However, it's unclear what plays the role of mass in this analogy.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    When it's one video of an angry mob killing bystanders, it's easy to dismiss. When it's hundreds, from different viewpoints, it's much harder.
    - redcobra762 3y ago
      ...so people are forging videos of mob justice? I'm not sure what your point is.
baq 3y ago
Computers are just fast calculators, right? Cars are just faster horses, right? Ships are just bigger canoes, right? Photographs are just quicker made paintings, right? Or… perhaps there is something different which makes practical what hasn’t been practical before? AI propaganda is the car of the propaganda horse of days past.
- marcellus23 3y ago
  For all of human history, the only way to know how an event happened is to either have witnessed it yourself, or heard from someone else. It's only the last 100 years or so that we've been able to record exactly what happened as audio, video, or photography. And still, it's possible to doctor any of these. That's not to mention that you can craft excellent propaganda even by using this "real" recorded media, just by cherrypicking and presenting it in a certain context. I don't think AI generated media is going to a massive sea change in misinformation. edit: downvoters should reply instead

t_mann 3y ago

I'm not denying that and I am concerned about that possibility. The thing is, I don't think you need deep or any fakes at all for that. What it takes are people willing to believe lies and consume hatred (fwiw, WWII was based on huge lies that didn't need much forgery). The more people are questioning hatred they're being fed, the better of a chance we have.

baq 3y ago
People believing lies or not isn’t the problem. The problem is that lie to truth ratio, admittedly not low enough even today, will rapidly approach 1. Finding anything trustworthy will be impractical, so people will stop trying. This is very scary. Being able to tell what’s true underpins western democracies. With everyone having plausible deniability from everything we’re going to have to… change things.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  People to people information from direct witnesses will go up in value because faking physical environments is expensive, while untrusted or unverified sources will become pretty much useless. In person settings will matter more again - back to older models in a way.
- t_mann 3y ago
  I don't think that needs to be true, though. Let's go with the UK since the article mentions the British PM, there are trustable sources like BBC and other media whose journalists can verify events on scene can work with trusted photographers, have contacts with whom to cross-check claims,... Yeah, some hoaxes will make it through the process, but some will be rectified later, and I don't see the ratio approaching 1. And those media are not hard to find. Taking the example from the article, there's no sustained uncertainty about whether the PM endorses a get-rich-quick scheme, and I don't see that coming, no matter how good the fakes become.
  - ejb999 3y ago
    >> trustable sources like BBC and other media whose journalists can verify events on scene can work with trusted photographers, have contacts with whom to cross-check claims They could, but do they? Evidence says no - they are perfectly happen to run with lies if it fits their narrative - and then weeks later, tucked away someplace, issue a retraction - after the damage is done. The BBC has an agenda, FOX news has an agenda, CNN has an agenda, MSNBC has an agenda, PBS has an agenda - they are all perfectly willing to lie to gather clicks or eyeballs - not sure AI is going to meaningfully change anything in that regard.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

overvale 3y ago

Ever seen the movie Wag the Dog?

wolverine876 3y ago

Lots of wars started that way before AI: Spanish-American ('remember the Maine!'), Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin), Iraq (nuclear weapons program), etc. AI would seem to make it worse. I think it will also get worse because warmongers can automate propaganda and, with social media, reach people directly.

onthecanposting 3y ago

I think misinformation is already out there. I can only guess what extent to which common knowledge on world events is false, but it's not zero. There is an interesting, though not that academically rigorous body of internet analysis on things like Pallywood and the Charles Jaco bluescreen video from the Gulf War that are a good starting point.