It recently occurred to me that future generations just won't really believe anything they see. Did you ever believe a painting must have been accurate reflection of reality? It is, in fact, us that are unusual in that, for a short few decades, we actually believed photographs (and other recordings) to be indisputably true. Deepfakes are just resetting it back to the way it was before photographs.
Is this a bad thing? Is the photograph really a cornerstone of our civilisation?
It's not even just about deepfakes. Photographs taken by must smartphones are already heavily embellished by default. With just a few extra taps you can remove unwanted members of the public from your pictures. It's all fake, and the generations growing up with it will understand photographs just like we understand paintings. Nice, but not true.
Not to discount the questions and dangers surrounding advancements in AI, but the internet has always been full of convincing bullshit. I think it's a good thing that more people than ever are becoming habitually skeptical of what they see online.
Is there some hidden signature behind this AI generated content so we can differentiate whats real and what isnt?
So I recently came to the realization I'm probably autistic.
Did you know, autistic people and advertisements don't go together: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-fallible-mind/20...
In my life, I've always found advertising toxic fake and kind of offensive? Sometimes I would even personally boycott the product being advertised.
Like, most advertisements, especially super bowl ones are entirely CGI these days. I used to try to spot the CGI game but now its more of a 'spot the not cgi'
Then when it comes to deepfakes and I just see right through them. It's black/white, its like watching anime and thinking its real life or something. How can something like that damage trust? It doesnt bother me in the slightest.
The problem with any form of trust is: who has the yardstick of truth to confirm or deny whatever-it-is?
In the final analysis, one can only say 'one knows' about those things one has personally verified to be true. The rest is hypothetical.
I hope so, because the trust was never justified. Maybe we'll start actually judging the content of arguments instead of just using easily exploitable heuristics.
Dunno, when people take Twitter/FB Messenger screenshots (or out of context photos) as ground truth, I'm not sure how convincing deepfakes would undermine trust in ways trust wasn't undermined before. And if you were sufficiently motivated before, you could photoshop people into compromising pictures without the aid of AI.
It seems to me that we have already lost most of our epistemic trust. Some people blame the troll farms, AI bots and baseless accusations of fake news. Others blame biased fact checkers, politicized media and philosophical relativism. And these groups blame each other.
Do movies ? It's not like deepfake videos can do something hollywood can't.
The answer should have been yes after about Terminator 2 was released, and has nothing to do with AI.
From the paper's abstract:
"We found that much of the misinformation in our dataset came from labelling real media as deepfakes."
That's basically the liar's dividend at work.
What doesn’t scare me about this is what Trump has demonstrated so clearly: lying with zero evidence to back you up is so much easier than faking the evidence. And it’s more effective because it’s impossible to argue against a reality that doesn’t exist.
Does the pope shit in the woods?
Because he sure does in a deepfake I saw.
[flagged]
What epistemic trust? Perhaps in the west where it wasn't 100% obvious everything media says is a lie. In the countries of the ex-Soviet block everyone is very aware of the propaganda back then and now. (propaganda is not just lies - every form of distribution of information with a goal to influence the receiving person is propaganda, propaganda can be true or false, it can be true and twisted into a different meaning, it can be deliberately false to out across a counterpoint etc). In short this is why people exposed to propaganda for decades are inclined to trust full length videos recorded by identifiable individuals on the ground a 100x more than any editorial on TV or uploaded by any organisation. This is why telegram and in a way twitter exploded as a source of news during this war.
Is it possible to insert deep fakes in there? Sure, but the technology is defonot good enough to not be able to tell it apart.