| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 7 hours ago |
| I think we’re just getting started, with fake images and videos. I suspect that people will be killed, because of outrage over fake stuff. Before the Ukraine invasion, some of the folks in Donbas made a fake bomb, complete with corpses from a morgue (with autopsy scars)[0]. That didn’t require any AI at all. We can expect videos of unpopular minorities, doing horrible things, politicians saying stuff they never said, and evidence submitted to trial, that was completely made from whole cloth. It’s gonna suck. [0] https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2022/02/28/exploiting-cadave... |
|
| ▲ | oefrha 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > We can expect videos of unpopular minorities, doing horrible things Expect? You can post a random image of an unpopular minority, add some caption saying they did horrible things, that is not reflected in the image at all, and tons of people will pile on. Don’t even need a fake video. |
| |
| ▲ | yakshaving_jgt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For some reason this hurts worse. I was listening to James O’Brien on LBC, and [IIRC] he said he was serving jury duty with a woman who was convinced that Volodymyr Zelenskyy had spent hundreds of million of dollars on a super-yacht. He asked if she had any evidence for that claim, and she produced a picture of a boat. He said “That’s just a picture of a boat.” | | |
| ▲ | groestl 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ironically, there is no evidence that woman ever said that. | | |
| ▲ | anonymous908213 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is, in fact, evidence that hundreds if not thousands of random people have said that: https://xcancel.com/KimDotcom/status/1729171832430027144 Perhaps you could even find that specific woman leaving an outraged comment over photos of boats if you looked hard enough! | | |
| ▲ | groestl 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, but in that story, parent only has the word of that Journalist. I personally don't even have that, I only have a post about it. My deeper point is that it's arguably very difficult to establish a global, socially acceptable lower threshold of trust. Parent's level is, apparently, the word of a famous Journalist in a radio broadcast. For some, the form of a message alone makes the message worthy of trust, and AI will mess with this so much. | | |
| ▲ | anonymous908213 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Whether you trust the word of the journalist has little relation to the story. The "socially acceptable lower threshold of trust" is not static for all stories; it changes depending on the stakes of the story. Non-consequential: A photo of a cat with a funny caption. I am likely to trust the caption by default, because the energy of doubting it is not worth the stakes. If the caption is a lie, it does nothing to change my worldview or any actions I will ever take. Nobody's life will be worse off for not having spent an hour debunking an amusing story fabricated over a cat photo. Trivially consequential: Somebody relates a story about an anonymous, random person peddling misinformation based on photos with false captions on the internet. Whether I believe that specific random person did has no bearing on anything. The factor from the story that might influence your worldview is the knowledge that there are people in the world who are so easily swayed by false captions on photos, and that itself is a trivially verifiable fact, including other people consuming the exact photo and misinformation from the story. More consequential: Somebody makes an accusation against a world leader. This has the potential to sway opinions of many people, feeding into political decisions and international relations. The stakes are higher. It is therefore prudent not to trust without evidence of the specific accusation at hand. Providence of evidence does also matter; not everything can be concretely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We should not trust people blindly, but people who have a history of telling the truth are more credible than people who have a history of lying, which can influence what evidence is sufficient to reach a socially acceptable threshold of trust. | |
| ▲ | jasonvorhe 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who cares about a single or two Yachts. Ukraine likely made 100 billion USD disappear and there were many people expecting just that. Just like some of the "donated equipment" started showing up on all sorts of black markets once it was shipped to Ukraine. It's just the obviously controlled media in Europe that stopped mentioning Ukraine's corruption issues right after February 2022. Obviously I can only be a Putin-loving propaganda bot for saying such things. | | |
| ▲ | matthewmacleod a few seconds ago | parent [-] | | Everybody is aware the Ukraine has major corruption issues. It is frequently covered in the media and is common knowledge. I have no doubt however that Europe (and hopefully the wider world) is less worried about that corruption than they are about Russian military aggression. And there will be some level of media focus on that – rightly so, where the focus should be on grinding the Russian kleptostate into dust as quickly and thoroughly as possible. You're not a propaganda bot; you're just making their lives easier. |
|
| |
| ▲ | netsharc an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hah, Kim Dotcom is still around? In the 90s he was bragging that he's this super hacker that made millions, his website posted pics of parties, cars, girls, and yachts, and it turned out those were bought/rented using swindled investor money (ironic that he's accusing Zelensky of the same crime). Then he became a sort of hero when the US/NZ governments Team 6-ed his house for the crime of aiding copyright infringement. Now he's a Putin/Trump apologist... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In fact, this is already happening on a daily basis. IA ain't the problem here, so called social media are. | | |
| ▲ | tormeh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, some news organizations are more than willing to spread fake news as well, so it's hardly limited to social media. I think it's just in-group vs out-group mentality, and a need to hate. | |
| ▲ | markdown an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It was not happening on a daily basis on Twitter before Elon Musk. The endless flow of racism and bigotry on that website is a choice. It's convenient to blame the amorphous thing "social media" instead of the actual people responsible. There are only a handful of them: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. And stopping it is simple. It's a choice. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ineedasername 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So far, I see the most concern about this sort of thing from people who came of age around or after Web 2.0 hit, at a time when even a good photoshop wasn’t too hard to place as fake. Those I know who lived through this issue when digital editing really became cheap seem to be more sanguine about it, while the younger generation on the opposite side side is some combination “whatever” or frustrated but accept that yet another of countless weird things has invade a reality that was never quite right to begin with. The folks in between, I’d say about the 20 years from age 20 to 40, are the most annoyed though. The eye of the storm on the way to proving that cyberpunk lacked the required imagination to properly calibrate our sense of when things were going to really get insane. |
|
| ▲ | intended 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oh heck yes. One India focused study that I saw, introduced me to the term Cheap Fakes. Another report studied how genAI made phishing pipelines more efficient, allowing profitable targeting of groups who hitherto were too poor to be targetted. So on one end you have large scale pollution of the information commons, and on the other end we are now creating predator pipelines to generate content with all the efficiency of our vaunted AI productivity. Its creating a dark forest for normal people to navigate, driving more government efforts to bring control. This in turn puts this in conflict with freedom of speech and expression while dovetailing nicely with authoritarian tendencies. Yes, Its heartening to hear all the people who find productivity gains from AI, but in totality it feels like we got our wishes granted by the Evil Genie. |
|
| ▲ | raverbashing 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > We can expect videos of unpopular minorities, doing horrible things While manipulation of photos exist, and real photos misattributed are very common, for the most part a lot of that does happen as well. And some people are too quick to ignore or gloss over it |
|
| ▲ | krapp 7 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >We can expect videos of unpopular minorities, doing horrible things, politicians saying stuff they never said, and evidence submitted to trial, that was completely made from whole cloth. AI videos of unpopular minorities already comprise an entire genre and AI political misinformation is already mainstream. I'm pretty sure every video of Donald Trump released by the WH is AI generated, to make him look less senile and frail than he really is. We're already there. |
|
| ▲ | huflungdung 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
