3 ms·

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

by 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.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Having an agenda isn't necessarily bad in and of itself. Wanting to maximize eyeballs or clicks is an incentive problem that can be addressed.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > there are trustable sources like BBC The BBC may have been trustworthy at some point, but that's a thing of the past. Here's a well known example of them purposely deceiving their viewers in meaningful ways in recent history (sic). Fortunately they were called out for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=904xN8YIQd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=904xN8YIQd4
    - defrost 3y ago
      Now do Blue Peter and Shaun the Sheep.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        Not sure what you're referring to?
- justinclift 3y ago
  Ahhh, so that's where we get a Ministry of Truth... ;)
  - baq 3y ago
    Wait till you realize 1984 was the optimistic take…

by t_mann 3y ago

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.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Having an agenda isn't necessarily bad in and of itself. Wanting to maximize eyeballs or clicks is an incentive problem that can be addressed.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > there are trustable sources like BBC The BBC may have been trustworthy at some point, but that's a thing of the past. Here's a well known example of them purposely deceiving their viewers in meaningful ways in recent history (sic). Fortunately they were called out for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=904xN8YIQd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=904xN8YIQd4
  - defrost 3y ago
    Now do Blue Peter and Shaun the Sheep.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      Not sure what you're referring to?
justinclift 3y ago
Ahhh, so that's where we get a Ministry of Truth... ;)
- baq 3y ago
  Wait till you realize 1984 was the optimistic take…