3 ms·

I'd argue it's a step or two more manipulative. Not only do bad actors have the ability to generate moving images which are default believed by many, they also

by kurthr 2y ago

I'd argue it's a step or two more manipulative. Not only do bad actors have the ability to generate moving images which are default believed by many, they also have the ability to measure the response over large populations, which lets them tune for the effect they want. One step more is building response models for target groups so that each can receive tailored distraction/outrage materials targeted to them. Further, the ability to replicate speech patterns and voice for each of your trusted humans with fabricated material is already commonplace. True endstage adtech will require attention modeling of individuals so that you can predict target response before presenting optimized material. It's not just a step back, it's a step into black. Each person has to maintain an encrypted web of trust and hope nobody in their trust ring is compromised. Once they are, it's not clear even in person conversations aren't contaminated.

tsimionescu 2y ago
> Further, the ability to replicate speech patterns and voice for each of your trusted humans with fabricated material is already commonplace. Just like the ability to emulate the writing style of your trusted humans was (somewhat) commonplace in the time in which you'd only talk to distant friends over letters. > Once they are, it's not clear even in person conversations aren't contaminated. How exactly could any current or even somewhat close technology alter my perception of what someone I'm talking to in-person is saying? Otherwise, the points about targeting are fair - PR/propaganda has already advanced considerably compared to even 50 years ago, and more personalized propaganda will be a considerable problem, regardless of medium.
- intended 2y ago
  The difference between artisanal work, vs mass production is enough to make it separate products. The rate of production is the incomparable, no matter what the parallels may seem.

by kurthr 2y ago

tsimionescu 2y ago

> Further, the ability to replicate speech patterns and voice for each of your trusted humans with fabricated material is already commonplace. Just like the ability to emulate the writing style of your trusted humans was (somewhat) commonplace in the time in which you'd only talk to distant friends over letters. > Once they are, it's not clear even in person conversations aren't contaminated. How exactly could any current or even somewhat close technology alter my perception of what someone I'm talking to in-person is saying? Otherwise, the points about targeting are fair - PR/propaganda has already advanced considerably compared to even 50 years ago, and more personalized propaganda will be a considerable problem, regardless of medium.

intended 2y ago
The difference between artisanal work, vs mass production is enough to make it separate products. The rate of production is the incomparable, no matter what the parallels may seem.