11 ms·

AI companies love to hype up how AI will provide a great benefit to the economy and transform intellectual labor, but I hardly see any discussion about how much

• whateverboat 7mo ago
  What's the solution apart from an identity providing service?
  • a2128 7mo ago
    I don't know of a solution. I don't think even identity verification will meaningfully solve this. People will get hacked, or provide their SEO-spamming agent with their own identity, or purposefully post fake videos under their own identity. As it becomes more normal to scan your ID to access random websites, it will also become easier to steal people's identities and the value of identity verification will go down.
    • nathanaldensr 7mo ago
      Agreed. The sphere of trust around each of us will shrink back to only those in our physical proximity. Outside of that, no one can be trusted.
    • intrasight 7mo ago
      People don't get hacked - devices get hacked. So all we need is a better chain of trust between two people. This is not a technology development problem as much as a technology implementation problem. And a political problem
      • bigfishrunning 7mo ago
        People get hacked -- a device could be flawless, but if a person is a victim of "Social Engineering" and hands the attacker a password, there's nothing the designer of the device could do about it.
        • soco 7mo ago
          2FA has tried to solve exactly this. Not many attacked people will hand over their password AND their phone. Yes I know, they might hand over one authentication code (and I know people who did exactly that)... We should also look into reducing the attack surface - if you get Instagram hacked you shouldn't get your Facebook hacked as well. But the current big tech centralization leads us to that single point of failure, because they don't care about the user's concerns only market grab. So... what now? Do we get the politics into this?
          • bigfishrunning 7mo ago
            One authentication code is often all that's needed to *change where the authentication codes are sent* Not to mention that most 2FA still uses SMS, which has it's own well-understood security flaws.
          • slumberlust 7mo ago
            You're on the right path. As long as we continue to use email as a fallback to every other form of authentication, it will remain a single point of failure and a relatively weak one at that. OP is still correct. No matter what, humans will remain the weakest link...it's in our nature to sympathize and every one of us has distracted/weak moments. It's just a matter of time; look at the guy who runs haveibeenpwnd...getting pwned.
  • Gigachad 7mo ago
    I’m seeing a huge increase in companies requiring in person interviews now. Seems there is a real possibility the internet as we know it will be destroyed.
    • rkomorn 7mo ago
      I think you might be right and I think I'll like some of the consequences and hate some of the others. More in-person stuff feels like a win to me (and I say this as someone who probably counts as introverted). Not being able to trust any online interactions anymore? Seems like a new height in what was already a negative.
      • Gigachad 7mo ago
        Agreed. I don't think there is any saving the internet as a social space long term. And I'm not entirely sad about that either. I think a return to in person interaction, public social spaces, and a retreat from social media would do the world a lot of good. Though there is a nightmarish possibility that people just accept this and willingly interact purely with bots, giving up all real relationships for AI ones.
    • dominotw 7mo ago
      linkedin is completely destroyed now. There are tons of ai bots there but real humans are now fronts for AI. So you cant even trust content from from ppl you know. identity serivce is not useful because that person might be a real person but they might just be a pipe to ai like we see on linkedin.
  • adithyassekhar 7mo ago
    That's just shifting the problem not solving it.
  • jjulius 7mo ago
    Touching grass. Valuing in-person connections. Focusing on the community, meatspaces and actual people around you. Getting off of the Internet and off of our devices. It's not just a solution to AI/LLMs modifying our reality but also a solution to [gestures wildly at the cultural, societal and global communication impacts of the past ~16 years]. This sentiment is unpopular, but it's true. Prioritize true connections and experiences.
• roflmaostc 7mo ago
  Partially agree. However, this problem has existed with scam e-mails since the 90s. For me the solution is in signed e-mails and signed documents. If the person invites me to a online meeting with a signed e-mail, I trust that person that it's really them. Same for footage of wars, etc. The journalist taking it basically signs the videos and verifies it's authenticity. It is AI generated, then we would loose trust in that person and wouldn't use their material anymore.
  • Forgeties79 7mo ago
    Spam emails in the 90’s don’t come remotely close to the operations people can set up by themselves with AI now. It doesn’t even compare.
  • TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
    How do you prove the signature isn't fake? Ultimately ID requires either a government ID service, a third party corporate ID service, or some kind of open hybrid - which doesn't exist. All of those have their issues.
    • olmo23 7mo ago
      I think he was referring to a cryptographic signature, possibly using the "web of trust" to get the key. I'm not convinced we need central authority to solve this.
    • tenacious_tuna 7mo ago
      people at my org were gleeful when they learned they could hook LLMs into Slack. Even if we had some reliable, well-used signature system, I think people would just let AI use it to send emails on their behalf.
      • bigfishrunning 7mo ago
        If the AI age has taught me anything, it's that most people do not care what their output is. They'll put their name on anything, taste or quality does not matter in the least. It's incredibly depressing.
• Forgeties79 7mo ago
  > footage of some incident somewhere may have been entirely fabricated by AI, Or the opposite, where people attempt to get out of trouble by calling real evidence into question by calling it “AI”
  • bigfishrunning 7mo ago
    Either way, the lack of trust is the damage.
    • Forgeties79 7mo ago
      Definitely
• thunky 7mo ago
  > damage it will cause to the economy when you can no longer trust that you're on a video call with an actual person What damage are you talking about? I'm not sure I understand why it matters that there is no real person there if you can't actually tell the difference. You're just demonstrating that you don't actually need a human for whatever it is you're doing.
  • skydhash 7mo ago
    > What damage are you talking about? Not GP, but there's a lot of damage that can be done with impersonation.
  • chii 7mo ago
    The grandparent post has the belief that human interaction is intrinsically better. Not sure i agree, but i can understand the POV. However, the increase in fake videos that are difficult to tell from real is indeed a potential issue. But the fact that misinformation today is already so prevalent is evidence that better video doesn't make it any worse than it already is imho.
    • collinmcnulty 7mo ago
      You're not sure if human to human interaction is intrinsically more valuable than a human talking to a facsimile? That feels like a very dangerous position to hold for one's ethical calculations and general sanity. I'm clinging tightly to the value of the bond with other people, even the passing connection, but certainly with my family members as this article is about.
      • pixl97 7mo ago
        Human to human may be more valuable, but that may not have much to do with the truth in their statements. For example if your relatives are hooked up to a constant misinformation feed it gets to become problematic to communicate and deal with them.
      • chii 7mo ago
        i much prefer using the ATM, self-checkouts and an e-commerce website, over having to talk to somebody at a branch to get money, buy my groceries, or booking a holiday.
• nslsm 7mo ago
  If anything deepfakes will be good for the economy because if you can’t do business with people who are far away it becomes harder to outsource.
  • bitmasher9 7mo ago
    In general barriers to trust/trade are bad for tbr economy.
• chistev 7mo ago
  We are still in the early stage of AI and already I struggle to tell what is real or fake on my Twitter feed. It will only get better in its deception with time. You know those incriminating Epstein photos with his associates? A few years from now a common defense from people like that would be that the photos were AI generated, and it would be difficult to prove them wrong beyond reasonable doubt. People in previous cases already attempted to dismiss incriminating pics of themselves as being the work of clever Photoshop artists.
  • Bombthecat 7mo ago
    No No AI has platued, it's not getting better!
• collinmcnulty 7mo ago
  "Is this a deepfake video call" is a major plot point in a pretty big movie currently in theaters, so I think this is getting into the broader zeitgeist.
• friendzis 7mo ago
  > Information found online will also no longer be trustable Most information you can access publicly, including Wikipedia, is a result of astroturfing fight. Most information online had not been trustable for double digit number of years now. > we already experience misleading articles today Again, had been happening for decades. > footage of some incident somewhere may have been entirely fabricated by AI Not like we did not already have doctored footage plaguing the public. > Money will have to be wasted on unnecessary flights to see stuff or meet people in-person instead of video Necessity to inspect the supply chain for snake oil has been a thing since at least EA (the Nasir one). We may be dealing with the problem of spam, but the problems have already been there.
  • pstuart 7mo ago
    All these are true, but just as it happened before the internet, it's accelerating even further. There are clear costs that cannot just be hand waved away.
    • ottah 7mo ago
      I'm not sure we can say it's accelerating. The techniques that adversarial actors use has always been changing and when they shift tactics it can take a while for an adequate defense is adopted. We're still dealing with sql injection in the owasp top ten. What I think would indicate an acceleration is when the most security oriented organizations continuously fail to defend against new attacks. If we start hearing about JPMorgan and Google getting popped every month or two, we're in trouble.
      • ACS_Solver 7mo ago
        The acceleration is in the decrease of the cost to produce misinformation. Misinformation in pure text form has always been cheapest, but is even cheaper now that text generation is basically a solved problem. Photos have been more expensive, it used to take time and skill with a photo editor to produce a believable image of an event that never happened. The cost is now very low, it's mostly about prompting skills. Fake videos were considerably harder, especially coupled with speech. Just a few years ago I could assume any video I saw was either real or a time-consuming, deliberate fake. We've now entered a time where fake videos of famous people take actual effort to tell apart, and can be produced for a low cost - something accessible to an individual, not a big corporation. We can have an entirely fake video of Trump, or another world leader, giving a speech and it will look like the real thing, with the audiovisual "tells" of it being fake getting harder to notice every few months.
• thisisit 7mo ago
  Laws will be passed to make it "safer". Just like it is happening with the id verification systems. Every image or video gen will require a watermark. Something visible which cannot be removed easily or hidden which can be detected and blocked. Access to models which do not comply will be made harder through id verification checks or something. There will be some regulatory capture in between. World will kick into gear only when something really bad happens. Maybe a influential person - rich or politician - fooled into doing something catastrophic due to a deepfake video/image. Until then normal people being affected isn't going to move the needle.
  • Miraste 7mo ago
    Verification needs to work the other way around, some kind of verifiable chain of trust for photos and videos from real cameras. Watermarking all generated media is impossible.
    • SirMaster 7mo ago
      I don't really understand why this is so hard or why it wasn't just done from the get go. Just have Apple and Google digitally sign videos and photos recorded from phones and then have Google and Meta, etc display that they are authentic when shown on their platforms.
      • alpha_squared 7mo ago
        You're talking about the metadata of the files, which can always be edited and someone will inevitably try to make software to do exactly that. Also, Adobe's proposal for handling generated content is exactly this and they're not able to get buy-in from other companies.
        • SirMaster 7mo ago
          Edit the metadata in what way? It's a cryptographic hash. If the bits that make up the video as was recorded by the camera don't match the hash anymore, then you know it was modified. That doesn't mean it's fake, it just means use skepticism when viewing. On the other hand the ones that have not been modified and still match can be trusted.
• esafak 7mo ago
  It is already a problem. Try interviewing people from LinkedIn and you'll face an onslaught of imposters. https://www.darkreading.com/remote-workforce/north-korean-operatives-deepfakes-it-job-interviews https://www.darkreading.com/remote-workforce/north-korean-op...
  • Bombthecat 7mo ago
    If you stop hiring or only unicorns from people you know or from your network, it's a solved problem!
• 47282847 7mo ago
  Honestly? Maybe that’s part of the solution, not the problem. I already see people including me going back to real world, local interactions and connections.
• kelvinjps10 7mo ago
  How do you do when people don't protect their signatures? there is already scam where people get tricked into forwarding message from their own numbers to other people or email.
• whatever1 7mo ago
  We need some sort of end to end verification. Aka from the sender camera to the receiver display / speakers. Maybe Apple will be able to pull it off? Aka if you FaceTime me I know that you are a person