Submitted by awesomedan24 t3_10pcuki in singularity
Gotisdabest t1_j6md2cm wrote
Reply to comment by BigZaddyZ3 in The legal implications of highly accurate AI-generated pictures and videos by awesomedan24
Your entire post seems insistent on the idea that people will magically just believe everything they see, despite obvious proof of existence of easy tools to make up lies. Gullible people will exist, no doubt, but most will just discount such sources entirely. And i don't think tech illiterate 80 year olds will be destroying society anytime soon.
Your view is so detached from practicality it's disturbing. Your "gotcha" with regards to "times change" makes no sense once you stop being arrogant and see the simple fact that too many lies doesn't mean everyone will believe them, it'll just mean the truth will also be difficult to obtain from specifically these sources.
> will have no way of knowing which information is fake or not in many cases.
How did they know back in the 80s or in any time in human history before the existence of the internet? How do they know right now? There will still be reliable and trustworthy sources. People can write lies on the internet today, and yes many believe them. People have always been able to say lies, and yes, many believed them. Neither led to collapse. After this happens there'll just be no social media of this kind left since the entire point behind it is gone. People will simply just have to revert to a world where videos aren't trustworthy anymore.
BigZaddyZ3 t1_j6mebz3 wrote
>>Your entire post seems insistent on the idea that people will magically just believe everything they see, despite obvious proof of existence of easy tools to make up lies. Gullible people will exist, no doubt, but most will just discount such sources entirely.
Wake up bruh… AI misinformation hasn’t even kicked in yet and half the country fell for the lie that Joe Biden didn’t actually win the election. Half the country believes that the COVID vaccine causes autism and heart disease. A significant amount of people believe the pandemic was “plan-demic” of whatever. Humans are incredibly susceptible to misinformation and we haven’t even reached the era of extremely convincing misinformation yet”.
>>How did they know back in the 80s or in any time in human history before the existence of the internet? How do they know right now? There will still be reliable and trustworthy sources.
Gee.. Maybe it because they could actually rely on photographic, video, and audio evidence back in that era? Something we’re about to lose the ability to do. And like I said, many people back then didn’t know what was the ultimate truth back then. they just believed whatever news outlets told them. Like I said, a lot of our perception of what exactly is going on around the world in totally dependent on what we are told by the media. Take this away, and many people become blind to any event that didn’t happen directly right in front of them. Trust me, that’s not a world you wanna live in. But like I said, we can just agree to disagree. No point arguing about this all day/night.
Gotisdabest t1_j6mf2xe wrote
>half the country fell for the lie
The fact that you state half the country is already rather telling. People believe bullshit lies they want to believe. That will always be true, with or without video. There is no extremely convincing misinformation. Once it becomes blatantly obvious that everything is false as opposed to the current climate where there's a debate to be had about the percentage of falsehood, the medium will simply become irrelevant. The weight behind it is that it comes from a trustworthy source to those people, not that it's organically based on some kind of proof.
>Gee.. Maybe it because they could actually rely on photographic, video, and audio evidence back in that era?
Yeah, the photographic video and audio evidence that was everywhere in all of the human history.
And people believed what trustworthy media told them, yeah. That had it's negatives but was all in all a functioning system that typically showed less cracks then the information system of today. These outlets will still exist and as i said before, likely get a lot more pushback for lies then in the current system, as a general standard of truth would arise from the common media standard. Opinion based media would be crushed under the weight of fact based media and an outlet reporting contradictory facts would quickly be singled out and discarded. Of course crazy conspiracy theories would still exist. It'd probably put a hard stop on dumbass conspiracy theories that are based on communities like Qanon since social media would by and large not be a thing.
BigZaddyZ3 t1_j6mfsfp wrote
No bruh… they believed in photographic evidence in those eras because there was no convincing way to manipulate those on a large scale. (especially the audio and video). That’s about to change soon.
Once we hit a point where video and audio can easily be faked, neither one will ever be believable again. You could just use the “it’s a deepfake argument” for everything. That wasn’t possible in those previous eras. So stop comparing the future to those eras. We are about enter a completely new era in history. We aren’t simply going back to the fucking 90s bruh. Lmao.
Gotisdabest t1_j6mgqy1 wrote
>they believed in photographic evidence in those eras because there was no convincing way to manipulate those on a large scale.
Again, are you trying to claim they believed in photographic evidence throughout all of human history.
>neither one will ever be believable again.
Not really. It just won't be believable from anonymous sources. When say, the NYT posts an article that Ukraine has blown up the Kerch bridge, it's much harder to just claim the photos are from some other incident then if some dude on reddit posts it. People already can claim anything they don't like is fake news, no matter the evidence behind it. Misinfo's strength is that most of info recieved in general from the same medium has to be credible and corroborated, or otherwise trustworthy. If nothing is trustworthy on the medium, the medium dies.
In non legal matters, people have always put more stock in individual trust and words rather than actual hard proof. Your own example on the election proved this where the people believing in the "hoax" idea lost dozens of court cases because they had no proof. They believe in it because someone they trust for whatever reason(despite him being a proven liar) said so.
Audio and video proof, which is rare anyways in most disputable cases , will become mostly contigent on the source. Like it mostly is today.
BigZaddyZ3 t1_j6mgyoz wrote
Lol we’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out I guess. Time will tell. There’s no point in continuing this any further in my opinion. Agree to disagree for now.
Gotisdabest t1_j6mh1zr wrote
That is true. I do agree that it isn't particularly long till the inciting incident occurs.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments