11 ms·

Videos and photos have been faked for a long time. Nothing has changed in that regard but decreasing the effort required somewhat.

jdiff 1y ago
"Somewhat" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. Fakery has gone from handcrafted in small batches (or at worst, produced through much effort in sweatshops) to fully automated and mass produced.
- rightbyte 1y ago
  Ye well "alot" might have been a better wording. However, the real breaking point in my view was when shills and semi-automated bots become so prevalent that they could fool people into believing some consensus had changed. Faking photos doesn't add much to that in my view.
  - jdiff 1y ago
    Why do you believe that is the case? Aren't standard, naturally-occurring social media echo chambers far more likely?
    - rightbyte 1y ago
      My gut says manipulation. I have no proofs what so ever.
notTooFarGone 1y ago
Only the price changed and that is everything.
- zettapwn 1y ago
  The open question is who’s worse: one major tyrant three thousand miles away or three thousand minor tyrants a mile away. If we consent to live under capitalism, then we’re destined to live in a world of lies. We always have; it’s all we’ve ever known. What we don’t know is whether we’ll be worse or better off when the technology of forgery is available to random broke assholes as easily as it is to governments and companies. More slop seems bad, but if our immunity against bullshit improves, people might redevelop critical thinking skills and capitalism could end.
EGreg 1y ago
"Nothing has changed in that regard" really, nothing? Does anyone other than me notice this common tendency on HN: 1. Blockhain use case mentioned? Someone must say "blockchain doesn't solve any problems" no matter what, and always ignoring any actual substance of what's being done until pressed. 2. AI issue mentioned? Someone must say "nothing at all has changed, this problem has always existed" downplaying the vast leaps forward in scale, and quality of output, ignoring any details until pressed. It's like when people feel the need to preface "there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but" before critiquing capitalism. You will not criticize the profit. It's not really a shibboleth. What's the name for this type of thing, groupthink?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- cb321 1y ago
  I would just call it a "pattern", but if you want to be more specific Re your 1/2, perhaps a "pattern of over-simplification". Over-simplification is, of course, basically human nature, not specific to HN, and something "scientists" of all stripes fight against in themselves. So, there may be a better one-worder. EDIT: while oversimplification is essentially always a problem, nuance and persuasion are usually at odds. So, it's especially noticeable in contexts where people are trying to persuade each other. The best parts of HN are not that, but rather where they try to inform each other.
raincole 1y ago
People had been able to send messages to each other for a very long time. However the internet still changed a lot of things.
- EGreg 1y ago
  I'll admit there were a few people doing the "HN thing" and saying "nothing really changed" when the Internet came out... but it was as a joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs-YpQj88ew&t=3m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs-YpQj88ew&t=3m20s
thomasahle 1y ago
Things like the government MAHA report, full of fake references to papers that don't exist, probably didn't happen as blatantly before AI. Even if people could easily have lied back then too. The ease of with which AI lies (or "hallucinates") makes a qualitative difference.
- tokai 1y ago
  Fake citations has always been common. Before they weren't just straight up fabrications. The cited papers usually exists, they just don't contain what is claimed by the referring paper. At least made up citations are quick and easy to denounce.
SupremumLimit 1y ago
Your comment follows two persistent HN tropes: (1) ignoring the article, which deals precisely with why the cost of production matters, and (2) steadfastly refusing to recognise that quantity has a quality of its own - in this case a monumental reduction in production cost clearly leads to a tectonic reshaping of the information landscape.
- brookst 1y ago
  …but enough about the printing press.
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    Funny that you mention the printing press. One of the first books published using it was about how to identify witches which led to "witch" burnings in Europe. At some point society adapted to the misinformation (and we are better off for it), but a lot of innocent people suffered in the meantime. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/europe-witch-trials-hunt-printing-press-b2629307.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/europ...
- rightbyte 1y ago
  I did read the article and it does deal with fake photos being an old thing and name drops e.g. Stalin's former companions being removed one by one from photos. "There was a brief window where photography and videos became widespread so events could be documented and evidenced." Photos are video have in themself not been evidence. You need trust the photographer or publisher too, since the camera was invented. Moving the cost from big $$$ level to my neighbour level makes scams more personalized, sure.
piva00 1y ago
I get bored by myself repeating it but I always think it's worth to mention: the scale and degree matter, in almost all cases of an issue, if not we can reduce a lot of issues to "it has always happened before". Localised fires are common in nature, a massive wildfire is just a fire, at a different scale and degree. Lunatics raving about conspiracies were very common in public squares, in front of metro stations, anywhere there was a large-ish flow of people, now they are very common in social media, reaching millions in an instant, different scale and degree. Just sheer scale and degree makes an issue a completely other issue, decreasing the effort required to fake a video to the point where a naïve/layperson cannot distinguish it from a real one is a massive difference. Before you needed to be technically proficient with a number of tools, put a lot of work, and get a somewhat satisfying result to fake something, now you just throw a magical incantation of words and it spits out a video you can deceive someone, it's a completely different issue.

jdiff 1y ago

"Somewhat" is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. Fakery has gone from handcrafted in small batches (or at worst, produced through much effort in sweatshops) to fully automated and mass produced.

rightbyte 1y ago
Ye well "alot" might have been a better wording. However, the real breaking point in my view was when shills and semi-automated bots become so prevalent that they could fool people into believing some consensus had changed. Faking photos doesn't add much to that in my view.
- jdiff 1y ago
  Why do you believe that is the case? Aren't standard, naturally-occurring social media echo chambers far more likely?
  - rightbyte 1y ago
    My gut says manipulation. I have no proofs what so ever.

notTooFarGone 1y ago

Only the price changed and that is everything.

zettapwn 1y ago
The open question is who’s worse: one major tyrant three thousand miles away or three thousand minor tyrants a mile away. If we consent to live under capitalism, then we’re destined to live in a world of lies. We always have; it’s all we’ve ever known. What we don’t know is whether we’ll be worse or better off when the technology of forgery is available to random broke assholes as easily as it is to governments and companies. More slop seems bad, but if our immunity against bullshit improves, people might redevelop critical thinking skills and capitalism could end.

EGreg 1y ago

"Nothing has changed in that regard" really, nothing? Does anyone other than me notice this common tendency on HN: 1. Blockhain use case mentioned? Someone must say "blockchain doesn't solve any problems" no matter what, and always ignoring any actual substance of what's being done until pressed. 2. AI issue mentioned? Someone must say "nothing at all has changed, this problem has always existed" downplaying the vast leaps forward in scale, and quality of output, ignoring any details until pressed. It's like when people feel the need to preface "there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but" before critiquing capitalism. You will not criticize the profit. It's not really a shibboleth. What's the name for this type of thing, groupthink?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
cb321 1y ago
I would just call it a "pattern", but if you want to be more specific Re your 1/2, perhaps a "pattern of over-simplification". Over-simplification is, of course, basically human nature, not specific to HN, and something "scientists" of all stripes fight against in themselves. So, there may be a better one-worder. EDIT: while oversimplification is essentially always a problem, nuance and persuasion are usually at odds. So, it's especially noticeable in contexts where people are trying to persuade each other. The best parts of HN are not that, but rather where they try to inform each other.

raincole 1y ago

People had been able to send messages to each other for a very long time. However the internet still changed a lot of things.

EGreg 1y ago
I'll admit there were a few people doing the "HN thing" and saying "nothing really changed" when the Internet came out... but it was as a joke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs-YpQj88ew&t=3m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs-YpQj88ew&t=3m20s

thomasahle 1y ago

Things like the government MAHA report, full of fake references to papers that don't exist, probably didn't happen as blatantly before AI. Even if people could easily have lied back then too. The ease of with which AI lies (or "hallucinates") makes a qualitative difference.

tokai 1y ago
Fake citations has always been common. Before they weren't just straight up fabrications. The cited papers usually exists, they just don't contain what is claimed by the referring paper. At least made up citations are quick and easy to denounce.

SupremumLimit 1y ago

Your comment follows two persistent HN tropes: (1) ignoring the article, which deals precisely with why the cost of production matters, and (2) steadfastly refusing to recognise that quantity has a quality of its own - in this case a monumental reduction in production cost clearly leads to a tectonic reshaping of the information landscape.

brookst 1y ago
…but enough about the printing press.
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  Funny that you mention the printing press. One of the first books published using it was about how to identify witches which led to "witch" burnings in Europe. At some point society adapted to the misinformation (and we are better off for it), but a lot of innocent people suffered in the meantime. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/europe-witch-trials-hunt-printing-press-b2629307.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/europ...
rightbyte 1y ago
I did read the article and it does deal with fake photos being an old thing and name drops e.g. Stalin's former companions being removed one by one from photos. "There was a brief window where photography and videos became widespread so events could be documented and evidenced." Photos are video have in themself not been evidence. You need trust the photographer or publisher too, since the camera was invented. Moving the cost from big $$$ level to my neighbour level makes scams more personalized, sure.

piva00 1y ago

I get bored by myself repeating it but I always think it's worth to mention: the scale and degree matter, in almost all cases of an issue, if not we can reduce a lot of issues to "it has always happened before". Localised fires are common in nature, a massive wildfire is just a fire, at a different scale and degree. Lunatics raving about conspiracies were very common in public squares, in front of metro stations, anywhere there was a large-ish flow of people, now they are very common in social media, reaching millions in an instant, different scale and degree. Just sheer scale and degree makes an issue a completely other issue, decreasing the effort required to fake a video to the point where a naïve/layperson cannot distinguish it from a real one is a massive difference. Before you needed to be technically proficient with a number of tools, put a lot of work, and get a somewhat satisfying result to fake something, now you just throw a magical incantation of words and it spits out a video you can deceive someone, it's a completely different issue.