4 ms·

In some ways, this just feels like a reversion to the mean for humanity. “Don’t believe everything you read” is a maxim as old as print, and it’s good advice. I

In some ways, this just feels like a reversion to the mean for humanity. “Don’t believe everything you read” is a maxim as old as print, and it’s good advice. If people ultimately learn that videos and recordings can’t be trusted, is that a huge loss? I’m not sure. Of course, the road from here to there may be bumpy...

fragmede 3y ago
scammers have already used this technology to convince people that someone they know needs money for some reason
- anon373839 3y ago
  Right, we're in a somewhat dangerous period where the general public doesn't understand the capabilities that exist and how they can be misused. But if you mentally fast-forward to a time when people do understand this and have even become blasé about it, what does that time look like? (Presumably, you don't wire money based on a phone call without kicking the tires a bit...)
  - taskforcegemini 3y ago
    it also means that audio and video proof that someone did you dirty can not be used anymore, because they could be fake
mewpmewp2 3y ago
In which cases anyhow would they have been a trustworthy content. You could easily take real videos out of context which people were already doing to mislead. Ultimately you should reason and investigate deeper to hold somewhat accurate opinion on anything. Most media and news out there already is where the agenda comes first and then it is about compiling cherry picked content from wide variety of content as evidence for that agenda. And you can find content to support any agenda already. It is a simple algorithm of: 1. We want to prove X. 2. From millions of datapoints we pick the 100 that support X the most. 3. We write an article on it. 4. Most of our readers already agree with X so they will be happy about it. No need to go deeper. 5. Anyone who doesn't agree would probably not read our platform anyway.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod
Shawnj2 3y ago
The answer we see is that if you put AI generated stuff in places people don’t look at too carefully they won’t care because they won’t notice. I’m not sure that’s great precedent
testacpwoek 3y ago
> In some ways, this just feels like a reversion to the mean for humanity. No it doesn't, this is ridiculous. All of you guys with your "this is just like the printing press" arguments are so intellectually lazy, think a little more about the problems of scale and speed and the way information spreads in the modern world.
- anon373839 3y ago
  Your tone is unwarranted. Also, an empty appeal to modernity, lacking any specifics whatsoever, is about as lazy as arguments get.

fragmede 3y ago

scammers have already used this technology to convince people that someone they know needs money for some reason

anon373839 3y ago
Right, we're in a somewhat dangerous period where the general public doesn't understand the capabilities that exist and how they can be misused. But if you mentally fast-forward to a time when people do understand this and have even become blasé about it, what does that time look like? (Presumably, you don't wire money based on a phone call without kicking the tires a bit...)
- taskforcegemini 3y ago
  it also means that audio and video proof that someone did you dirty can not be used anymore, because they could be fake

mewpmewp2 3y ago

In which cases anyhow would they have been a trustworthy content. You could easily take real videos out of context which people were already doing to mislead. Ultimately you should reason and investigate deeper to hold somewhat accurate opinion on anything. Most media and news out there already is where the agenda comes first and then it is about compiling cherry picked content from wide variety of content as evidence for that agenda. And you can find content to support any agenda already. It is a simple algorithm of: 1. We want to prove X. 2. From millions of datapoints we pick the 100 that support X the most. 3. We write an article on it. 4. Most of our readers already agree with X so they will be happy about it. No need to go deeper. 5. Anyone who doesn't agree would probably not read our platform anyway.

scarface_74 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod

Shawnj2 3y ago

The answer we see is that if you put AI generated stuff in places people don’t look at too carefully they won’t care because they won’t notice. I’m not sure that’s great precedent

testacpwoek 3y ago

> In some ways, this just feels like a reversion to the mean for humanity. No it doesn't, this is ridiculous. All of you guys with your "this is just like the printing press" arguments are so intellectually lazy, think a little more about the problems of scale and speed and the way information spreads in the modern world.

anon373839 3y ago
Your tone is unwarranted. Also, an empty appeal to modernity, lacking any specifics whatsoever, is about as lazy as arguments get.