4 ms·

So we get a fresh new cheap way to spread propaganda and lies and erode trust all across society while cementing power and control for a few at the top, and in

by latexr 6mo ago

So we get a fresh new cheap way to spread propaganda and lies and erode trust all across society while cementing power and control for a few at the top, and in return get a few measly icons (as if there weren’t literally thousands of them freely available already) and silly images for momentaneous amusement? What a rotten exchange.

SamuelAdams 6mo ago
I wonder what will happen to the entire legal system. It used to be fairly difficult to create convincing photos and videos. AI can probably fool most court judges now. Or the defense can refute legitimate evidence by saying “it’s AI / false”. How would that be refuted?
- idiotsecant 6mo ago
  By having people also testify to authenticity and coming down like the hand of God on fakers, the same way we make sure evidence is real now.
- jll29 6mo ago
  Yes, that is a major worry of mine, too. CCTV evidence is worth nil now (could be generated in whole or part), and even eye-witness testimony can be trusted (sure, a witness may think they saw the alleged perpetrator, but perhaps they just saw an AI-generated video/projection of someone).
- BLKNSLVR 6mo ago
  MS13 was literally tattooed on his knuckles!
- Gigachad 6mo ago
  Multiple data sources, considering the trustworthiness of the source of the information, and accountability for lying. You might generate an AI video of me committing a crime, But the CCTV on the street didn't show it happening and my phone cell tower logs show I was at home. For the legal system I don't think this is going to be the biggest problem. It's going to be social media that is hit hardest when a fake video can go viral far faster than fact checking can keep up.
- gedy 6mo ago
  If it means anything, I have a 1990 Almanac from an old encyclopedia that warns the exact same thing about digital photo manipulation. I don't think it really matters at this point
- lxgr 6mo ago
  For better or worse, the only admissible evidence going forward will probably be either completely physical or originated in attestation-capable recording devices, i.e. something like a "forensics grade" camera with a signing key in trusted hardware issued by somebody deemed trustworthy. Given the obvious personal safety upsell ("our phone/dashcam/... produces court-admissible evidence!"), I think we'll even see this in consumer devices before too long.
- dale_glass 6mo ago
  Trials have rules for evidence. You can't just pull out some footage out of nowhere. Where did that come from? From what camera? What was the chain of custody on its footage? Etc.
thesmtsolver2 6mo ago
Don’t blame the tools. Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn’t need AI.
- latexr 6mo ago
  That pro forma response grows oh so very tiresome. For the nth time: scale, easiness, and access, matter. AI puts propaganda abilities far beyond the reach of those men in the hands of many more people. Do you not understand the difference between one man with a revolver and an army with machine guns? They are not the same. Nowhere in my comment am I “blaming the tools”. I’ll ask you engage with the argument honestly instead of simply parroting what you already believe absent reading.
  - thesmtsolver2 6mo ago
    Did you do a net benefit calculation? If not, all these knee jerk anti-AI comments are tiresome and predictable (see luddites). > I’ll ask you engage with the argument honestly instead of simply parroting what you already believe absent reading I did engage with argument. The argument is a tiresome old argument that is knee-jerk anti tech. You seem to be the thoughtless one in this discourse repeating for the infinite time an anti-tech position assuming net negatives outweigh massively net +ves. Also, why attack me instead of the argument? Did I touch a logical sore point? I believe so. > For the nth time: scale, easiness, and access, matter. By that logic, So the printing press was evil? Remember, Mao/Stalin/Hitler used presses to spread their propaganda. Also, for the n+1 time, using your own style, don't be lazy: 1. Come up with a net benefit calculation for AI. What? You can't? Then, don't try to claim this is all net negative. 2. Explain how AI is different from other tech like the printing press, that also had scale, easiness, and access.
jll29 6mo ago
AI can also be used to fight propaganda, for instance BiasScanner makes you aware of potentially manipulative news: https://biasscanner.org https://biasscanner.org . So that makes AI a "dual good", like a kitchen knife: you can cut your tomato or kill you neighbor with it, entirely up to the "user". Not all users are good, so we'll see an intense amplification of both good and bad.
- dymk 6mo ago
  It's more work to fight bullshit than it is to generate it, though. Saying "Use AI to fight it" is inherently a losing strategy when the other side also has an AI that is just as powerful.
  - jrumbut 6mo ago
    And no amount of BS detecting tells you what is true. The challenge that I see a lot of people have is they really don't have a framework to incorporate new information into. They're adrift, every new "fact" (whether true or false) blows them in a new direction. Often they get led in terrible directions from statements that are entirely true (but missing important context). A lot of financial cons work that way, a long string of true statements that seem to lead to a particular conclusion. I know that if someone is offering me 20% APY there will usually be some risk or fee that offsets those market-beating gains (it may be a worthwhile risk or a well earned fee, but that number needs to trigger further investigation). We need people to be equipped with that sort of framework in as many areas as possible, but we seem to be moving backwards in that area.
- nullsanity 6mo ago
  [dead]
- jrumbut 6mo ago
  AI is certainly a dual good but I think the project is misguided at best. I put in one of the driest descriptions of the Holocaust I could find and it got a very high score for bias, calling a factual description of a massacre emotional sensationalism because it inevitably contains a lot of loaded words. It also doesn't differentiate between reporting, commentary, poetry, or anything else. It takes text and spits out a number, which is a very shallow analysis.

by latexr 6mo ago

SamuelAdams 6mo ago

I wonder what will happen to the entire legal system. It used to be fairly difficult to create convincing photos and videos. AI can probably fool most court judges now. Or the defense can refute legitimate evidence by saying “it’s AI / false”. How would that be refuted?

idiotsecant 6mo ago
By having people also testify to authenticity and coming down like the hand of God on fakers, the same way we make sure evidence is real now.
jll29 6mo ago
Yes, that is a major worry of mine, too. CCTV evidence is worth nil now (could be generated in whole or part), and even eye-witness testimony can be trusted (sure, a witness may think they saw the alleged perpetrator, but perhaps they just saw an AI-generated video/projection of someone).
BLKNSLVR 6mo ago
MS13 was literally tattooed on his knuckles!
Gigachad 6mo ago
Multiple data sources, considering the trustworthiness of the source of the information, and accountability for lying. You might generate an AI video of me committing a crime, But the CCTV on the street didn't show it happening and my phone cell tower logs show I was at home. For the legal system I don't think this is going to be the biggest problem. It's going to be social media that is hit hardest when a fake video can go viral far faster than fact checking can keep up.
gedy 6mo ago
If it means anything, I have a 1990 Almanac from an old encyclopedia that warns the exact same thing about digital photo manipulation. I don't think it really matters at this point
lxgr 6mo ago
For better or worse, the only admissible evidence going forward will probably be either completely physical or originated in attestation-capable recording devices, i.e. something like a "forensics grade" camera with a signing key in trusted hardware issued by somebody deemed trustworthy. Given the obvious personal safety upsell ("our phone/dashcam/... produces court-admissible evidence!"), I think we'll even see this in consumer devices before too long.
dale_glass 6mo ago
Trials have rules for evidence. You can't just pull out some footage out of nowhere. Where did that come from? From what camera? What was the chain of custody on its footage? Etc.

thesmtsolver2 6mo ago

Don’t blame the tools. Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn’t need AI.

latexr 6mo ago
That pro forma response grows oh so very tiresome. For the nth time: scale, easiness, and access, matter. AI puts propaganda abilities far beyond the reach of those men in the hands of many more people. Do you not understand the difference between one man with a revolver and an army with machine guns? They are not the same. Nowhere in my comment am I “blaming the tools”. I’ll ask you engage with the argument honestly instead of simply parroting what you already believe absent reading.
- thesmtsolver2 6mo ago
  Did you do a net benefit calculation? If not, all these knee jerk anti-AI comments are tiresome and predictable (see luddites). > I’ll ask you engage with the argument honestly instead of simply parroting what you already believe absent reading I did engage with argument. The argument is a tiresome old argument that is knee-jerk anti tech. You seem to be the thoughtless one in this discourse repeating for the infinite time an anti-tech position assuming net negatives outweigh massively net +ves. Also, why attack me instead of the argument? Did I touch a logical sore point? I believe so. > For the nth time: scale, easiness, and access, matter. By that logic, So the printing press was evil? Remember, Mao/Stalin/Hitler used presses to spread their propaganda. Also, for the n+1 time, using your own style, don't be lazy: 1. Come up with a net benefit calculation for AI. What? You can't? Then, don't try to claim this is all net negative. 2. Explain how AI is different from other tech like the printing press, that also had scale, easiness, and access.

jll29 6mo ago

AI can also be used to fight propaganda, for instance BiasScanner makes you aware of potentially manipulative news: https://biasscanner.org https://biasscanner.org . So that makes AI a "dual good", like a kitchen knife: you can cut your tomato or kill you neighbor with it, entirely up to the "user". Not all users are good, so we'll see an intense amplification of both good and bad.

dymk 6mo ago
It's more work to fight bullshit than it is to generate it, though. Saying "Use AI to fight it" is inherently a losing strategy when the other side also has an AI that is just as powerful.
- jrumbut 6mo ago
  And no amount of BS detecting tells you what is true. The challenge that I see a lot of people have is they really don't have a framework to incorporate new information into. They're adrift, every new "fact" (whether true or false) blows them in a new direction. Often they get led in terrible directions from statements that are entirely true (but missing important context). A lot of financial cons work that way, a long string of true statements that seem to lead to a particular conclusion. I know that if someone is offering me 20% APY there will usually be some risk or fee that offsets those market-beating gains (it may be a worthwhile risk or a well earned fee, but that number needs to trigger further investigation). We need people to be equipped with that sort of framework in as many areas as possible, but we seem to be moving backwards in that area.
nullsanity 6mo ago
[dead]
jrumbut 6mo ago
AI is certainly a dual good but I think the project is misguided at best. I put in one of the driest descriptions of the Holocaust I could find and it got a very high score for bias, calling a factual description of a massacre emotional sensationalism because it inevitably contains a lot of loaded words. It also doesn't differentiate between reporting, commentary, poetry, or anything else. It takes text and spits out a number, which is a very shallow analysis.