I think it's a good thing. Not that it's being used for evil things, but because it should help make it obvious that you can't trust anything you see on a screen.
Using fake media to trick people into believing anything used to be a privileged reserved for nation states and the ultra rich. Now that _ANYONE_ and their cat can do it, it should follow that nobody can believe anything that's on a screen anymore (this comment included).
> but because it should help make it obvious that you can't trust anything you see on a screen.
I think this in general (text, audio, video) will produce a societal earthquake, in a way send us into the Middle Ages - you can't really verify things yourself, because everything can be faked, all you can do is anchoring yourself to some trusted authority.
Imagine you read on hacker news an (AI generated) article about a new breakthrough in physics - new convincing evidence for the cyclical universe hypothesis. In the discussion, there will be a lot of seemingly informed comments arguing about this (all AI generated), links to video presentations from reputable scientists (all AI generated) and papers (all AI generated). It will be all wrong (= there wasn't any breakthrough in the first place), but impossible for a non-physicist to assess correctly.
In a way it will lead to centralization of internet and knowledge, people will stick only to their trusted sources. For some it may be Wikipedia and NYTimes, for others some AI-generated island of knowledge/manipulation.
I also wonder what effects this will have on social platforms when 99% of content is generated by AI.
My thought is: if you think conspiracy culture war shitshows are bad now with whatever people on both sides having talking heads saying whatever feeds red meat to their base, imagine trying to bridge the gap in a world with infinite red meat generators competing with each other for audience eyeballs forever.
In Accepting an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame a few years ago, General David Sarnoff made this statement: “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” That is the voice of the current somnambulism. Suppose we were to say, “Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value.” Or, “The smallpox virus is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines their value.” That is, if the slugs reach the right people firearms are good. If the TV tubes fire the right ammunition at the right people it is good. I am not being perverse. There is simply nothing in the Sarnoff statement that will bear scrutiny, for it ignores the nature of the medium, of any and all media, in the true Narcissus style of one hypnotized by the amputation and extension of his own being in a new technical form. General Sarnoff went on to explain his attitude to the technology of print, saying that it was true that print caused much trash to circulate, but it had also disseminated the Bible and the thoughts of seers and philosophers. It has never occurred to General Sarnoff that any technology could do anything but add itself on to what we already are. (p. 11)
Whats your alternative? Attempt to hide the fact that everything can be easily faked, and that you don't need to be a hollywood studio to do it?
What good do you think that does? Instill a false sense of security and trust in a medium which cannot bear it ? How's that not worse?
Even outright banning this technology won't make a dent in the bad uses, since those individuals are highly motivated, highly competent and don't care the least about the ban..
It's not like the development won't happen, it will just be hidden, making it less obvious to the potential victims (increasing the size of this group, since you then need to be "in the know").
So no, the only way forward is to have this out in the open as much as possible so that as many people as possible become aware of how trivial it already is to fake stuff.
> If you truly believe all that, what are you doing to minimise the inevitable damage?
I'm not doing anything, in particular, I don't know what to do about it ?
I could say that I "do my research" but I don't, because I don't know how to do that withing the framework of not trusting what I read.
I probably use my personal version of common sense, which of course is biased and lacking.. For instance, with the covid masks, I ignored the media arguments from both sides, and thought "if it's in the air, a mask might trap some particles, it might reduce my chance of spreading it or catching it".. I didn't believe the studies that said it was inefficient because I know doctors are using masks during surgery, and Japanese during common cold, so, I know they're at least not going to be detrimental.
I'm old enough that I learned a lot of stuff before the information apocalypse.. I try to apply my understanding of the world to selecting a course of action, but I also understand that it will be imperfect.
I listen to arguments and try to apply my own rationale in deciding whether to believe them.. But we all do that.. I don't take statements as facts at face value because I don't know how they were derived, I will try to think about how plausible it is, together with the sources and my existing knowledge.. Of course I will fail.
Yeah, I believe it but I don't know what can be done about it. I put more confidence in some sources than other, but I don't believe anything to be 100% true simply based on the source..
Why does it have to be traumatic? Maybe the development of mass media was traumatic, everyone putting near-complete trust in any video they see or piece of text they read was traumatic, and now we will see some of that trauma be undone.
>> Maybe the development of mass media was traumatic,
Yes, it really was. Adolf Hitler, for one, found radio and cinema and he just used what was already there. Before his countrymen had developed the media chops to deal with his messaging.
Others' past failures are not an excuse for our future ones. Nor should we allow ourselves to blithely imagine that this time it'll be different. Without strong evidence to the contrary.
So imagine if we had done what you suggest and slowed the spread of radio and cinema. People have barely any idea that such things are possible. And then one day Hitler comes along after surreptitiously developing radio and cinema, and distributes it among the German population, and uses it for his propaganda campaigns. Would that have been better?
Timing is all. You may dislike the analogy - sorry I don't mean to antagonise.
At the start of the pandemic, and in the middle and towards the end there were always voices arguing for "herd immunity now! Let the inevitable happen, as it must".
For me, those voices were too early, until other things had fallen into place. Then they were eventually right.
I am already not safe from it, but it is less obvious because people like to think the technology doesn't exist merely because it is kind of expensive.
The church has been around for years and despite the millennia of lies we are all still here and thriving and improving.
Sure, certain members of the church got carried away with their power but the church has also been a huge psychological boon to billions of people. For example, we have Christianity to thank for the concept of individual rights and sovereignty. It wasn't that long ago that individuals did not have any inherent value. Christianity is at the root of the "modern" concept of "innocent until proven guilty".
Using fake media to trick people into believing anything used to be a privileged reserved for nation states and the ultra rich. Now that _ANYONE_ and their cat can do it, it should follow that nobody can believe anything that's on a screen anymore (this comment included).