4 ms·

My specific fear is that if a picture of you next to your name is available online, that becomes part of the training set of a future model. Paranoically, I do

My specific fear is that if a picture of you next to your name is available online, that becomes part of the training set of a future model. Paranoically, I do not have any picture of myself available online. I could then trivially generate pictures or even videos of you e.g. by knowing your name. Of course that's just an example but I do think that's where we are headed and so the concept of "trust" will change a lot.

marginalia_nu 2y ago
Seems like the end game for that technological development is kind of self-defeating. Once it's 2 clicks away to generate a believable video of someone at the kkk kitten barbecue getting along with ted bundy and jeff epstein, surely the evidence value of that would dwindle, and the brief period in history when video evidence was both accessible and somewhat believable will come to an end.
- cess11 2y ago
  Lynchings aren't commonly waged based on a solid process of evaluating evidence.
  - marginalia_nu 2y ago
    In that regard, the presence of this type of evidence isn't worth much either, a malicious rumor or an accusation is plenty sufficient to stoke the flames of an angry and terrified mob, nobody's going to pause the proceedings and wait for a fair and cool-headed judgement of evidence. This is after all a phenomenon that is far older than the smartphone.
- thfuran 2y ago
  It turns out that humans aren't perfectly rational actors. Actors get hatemail and death threats because of roles they've played, "evidence" that isn't just potentially suspect but actually known to be entirely fictional.
- disqard 2y ago
  You're right -- there's nothing axiomatic about the trustworthiness of pixels, and there was a brief window of Time in human history when photos/videos had the qualities you mentioned, and (sadly) that era will end soon. Being savvy means not treating photos/videos as "untrustworthy", which (ironically) is one of the things the Western world made fun of the Taliban for -- their fundamentalist view called it "haram": https://www.deseret.com/1997/10/6/19338048/taliban-army-bans-photos-of-people-animals/ https://www.deseret.com/1997/10/6/19338048/taliban-army-bans... I worry about written matter too, and here as well, vast masses of LLM-spewed text will surely pollute the landscape irreversibly.
criddell 2y ago
Do you have a state driver’s license? If so, then chances are data brokers have your photo from that. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/03/19/its-mind-blowing-how-many-millions-of-dollars-texas-makes-each-year-selling-your-personal-data/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/03/19/its-mind...
- cudgy 2y ago
  And your fingerprints …
- sureglymop 2y ago
  I am not from the US so no. And when I did visit the US, I was young enough not to have to give my fingerprints at the airports.
  - criddell 2y ago
    If it was a while back, your passport probably wasn’t the kind with a chip. If you visit today, your passport photo is electronically readable. I have no idea if the feds are as sloppy with this data as the states are though.

marginalia_nu 2y ago

Seems like the end game for that technological development is kind of self-defeating. Once it's 2 clicks away to generate a believable video of someone at the kkk kitten barbecue getting along with ted bundy and jeff epstein, surely the evidence value of that would dwindle, and the brief period in history when video evidence was both accessible and somewhat believable will come to an end.

cess11 2y ago
Lynchings aren't commonly waged based on a solid process of evaluating evidence.
- marginalia_nu 2y ago
  In that regard, the presence of this type of evidence isn't worth much either, a malicious rumor or an accusation is plenty sufficient to stoke the flames of an angry and terrified mob, nobody's going to pause the proceedings and wait for a fair and cool-headed judgement of evidence. This is after all a phenomenon that is far older than the smartphone.
thfuran 2y ago
It turns out that humans aren't perfectly rational actors. Actors get hatemail and death threats because of roles they've played, "evidence" that isn't just potentially suspect but actually known to be entirely fictional.
disqard 2y ago
You're right -- there's nothing axiomatic about the trustworthiness of pixels, and there was a brief window of Time in human history when photos/videos had the qualities you mentioned, and (sadly) that era will end soon. Being savvy means not treating photos/videos as "untrustworthy", which (ironically) is one of the things the Western world made fun of the Taliban for -- their fundamentalist view called it "haram": https://www.deseret.com/1997/10/6/19338048/taliban-army-bans-photos-of-people-animals/ https://www.deseret.com/1997/10/6/19338048/taliban-army-bans... I worry about written matter too, and here as well, vast masses of LLM-spewed text will surely pollute the landscape irreversibly.

criddell 2y ago

Do you have a state driver’s license? If so, then chances are data brokers have your photo from that. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/03/19/its-mind-blowing-how-many-millions-of-dollars-texas-makes-each-year-selling-your-personal-data/ https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2021/03/19/its-mind...

cudgy 2y ago
And your fingerprints …
sureglymop 2y ago
I am not from the US so no. And when I did visit the US, I was young enough not to have to give my fingerprints at the airports.
- criddell 2y ago
  If it was a while back, your passport probably wasn’t the kind with a chip. If you visit today, your passport photo is electronically readable. I have no idea if the feds are as sloppy with this data as the states are though.