3 ms·

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 medi

by 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?

by t_mann 3y ago

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?