AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Jfdlsjfd]

Since those tools are not in the hands of a small group, but open sourced and able to be ran by anyone on consumer computer (and even smartphones), the end result will be "everyone will know that the "video proof" is worth nothing since they can create it themselves. In the Middle Ages, "it's written there it must be true" was possible because literacy rate was low. Picture of Nessie or the Yeti worked well until people generally got more photo-literate... When everyone will be able to create its own news anchor at home (if anything, to make a Jarvis-like Alexa for controling their home appliances), they'll stop giving the credit to the "I saw it on video, so it must be true" -- and even more so when they can go "OK google, create and display me a 2h film ripping off star wars" and voilà, something on par with Rebel Moon will be created in real time ;-). The "truth in video" reasoning was already failing because the reasoning was it would cost a lot of money to create a false video, but state-related propaganda actors had enough money to do it anyway, and overdid it so videos aren't that trusted as much as before...

 

[lynnfredricks]

Since those tools are not in the hands of a small group, but open sourced and able to be ran by anyone on consumer computer (and even smartphones), the end result will be "everyone will know that the "video proof" is worth nothing since they can create it themselves. In the Middle Ages, "it's written there it must be true" was possible because literacy rate was low. Picture of Nessie or the Yeti worked well until people generally got more photo-literate... When everyone will be able to create its own news anchor at home (if anything, to make a Jarvis-like Alexa), they'll stop giving the credit to the "I saw it on video, so it must be true". That reasoning was already failing because the reasoning was it would cost a lot of money to create a false video, but state-related propaganda actors had enough money to do it anyway, and overdid it so videos aren't that trusted as much as before...

Nobody should believe in the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie now, right?

The fact that a tool is open sourced does not mean the functions will be generally understood. Even when tools are made consumer friendly (and free), you are making an assumption that user literacy will improve.

"Station identification" came into existence as a result of the "War of the Worlds" radio show. Not a lot of people believed it was true, but the impact was big enough to require changes to media law.

 

[overgeeked]

Nobody should believe in the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie now, right?

The fact that a tool is open sourced does not mean the functions will be generally understood. Even when tools are made consumer friendly (and free), you are making an assumption that user literacy will improve.

"Station identification" came into existence as a result of the "War of the Worlds" radio show. Not a lot of people believed it was true, but the impact was big enough to require changes to media law.

Right?

People still believe in Bigfoot and Nessie (they don't). People still believe the Earth is flat (it isn't). Still believe vaccines cause autism (they don't). Still believe trickle-down economics helps poor people (it doesn't, it just further concentrates wealth with the already rich). Etc.

Controlling the narrative is an incredibly powerful tool.

As one example that's close to home, just look at how everyone thinks Gary Gygax invented RPGs and D&D when it was David Wesley who invented RPGs, Dave Arneson who refined RPGs and took them into fantasy dungeons, and Gary's daughter who named D&D. Gary was a better salesman than Dave, so everyone remember his version of history. Same with Stan Lee and so much of the Marvel Comics catalog of characters. Controlling the narrative does actually matter.

 

[Scribe]

Controlling the narrative does actually matter.

Second only to creating the narrative, and pushing it out via the already controlled mechanisms of the day.

cough social media is a blight on our species cough

 

[lynnfredricks]

Right?

People still believe in Bigfoot and Nessie (they don't). People still believe the Earth is flat (it isn't). Still believe vaccines cause autism (they don't). Still believe trickle-down economics helps poor people (it doesn't, it just further concentrates wealth with the already rich). Etc.

Controlling the narrative is an incredibly powerful tool.

As one example that's close to home, just look at how everyone thinks Gary Gygax invented RPGs and D&D when it was David Wesley who invented RPGs, Dave Arneson who refined RPGs and took them into fantasy dungeons, and Gary's daughter who named D&D. Gary was a better salesman than Dave, so everyone remember his version of history. Same with Stan Lee and so much of the Marvel Comics catalog of characters. Controlling the narrative does actually matter.

There are people that believe in those things, despite no rational evidence existing to support it. About 2 in 10 Americans believe in witchcraft.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Nobody should believe in the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie now, right?

And nobody does (outside of fringe conspiracy theorists maybe, but it's not because they get fed disinformation by an organized group, it's because they want to believe), and a bad photography won't change that for most people, that's my point.

The fact that a tool is open sourced does not mean the functions will be generally understood. Even when tools are made consumer friendly (and free), you are making an assumption that user literacy will improve.

It will because of wide adoption on one part, as AI has the potential to create great societal transformations, and education on the other part. Reacting correctly to fake news is nowadays taught in the junior high curriculum. Sure, it will take some time (like Nessie) but I have trust in the end result.

"Station identification" came into existence as a result of the "War of the Worlds" radio show. Not a lot of people believed it was true, but the impact was big enough to require changes to media law.

And nowadays, nobody will trust reports of an alien attack that are only picked by a single network. Even the less informed of people will cross-check the information, even if only by googling it or going to social media (which are arguably a worse reflex than blind trust in the radio, but at least it's some form of fact-checking, provided they don't limit their investigation to channels that reiterate the same source)

 

[overgeeked]

There are people that believe in those things, despite no rational evidence existing to support it. About 2 in 10 Americans believe in witchcraft.

It's really easy to get to about 7 in 10 people in the US believe in things without rational evidence. Like angels. But these are both religion, so verboten for the forum.

 

[Ryujin]

It's really easy to get to about 7 in 10 people in the US believe in things without rational evidence. Like angels. But these are both religion, so verboten for the forum.

We already have internet campaigns that feed into people's fears, by supporting the conspiracies that they want to believe, having an effect upon daily life. No doubt AI is already being employed to give real time responses to people's posts on those subjects.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

We already have internet campaigns that feed into people's fears, by supporting the conspiracies that they want to believe, having an effect upon daily life. No doubt AI is already being employed to give real time responses to people's posts on those subjects.

Have you noticed the "Dead Internet Theory" ?

It's a fringe stance saying that all content on the Internet is already created by bots replying to other bot and nearly no content is actually posted by humans anymore. This is extreme (and funny) but as people move from one media to another, it is bound to happen (for example, as Facebook lost its appeal among the younger people, at some point in the future everyone will have left and there will only be bots, or dead people's accounts). If fake content generation explodes in the future, then most of the Internet will be untrustworthy and the normal reaction to hearing someone say "I saw on the Internet..." the same as "I saw on The Onion...", not giving any credence to the news.

 

[Ryujin]

Have you noticed the "Dead Internet Theory" ?

It's a fringe stance saying that all content on the Internet is already created by bots replying to other bot and nearly no content is actually posted by humans anymore. This is extreme (and funny) but as people move from one media to another, it is bound to happen (for example, as Facebook lost its appeal among the younger people, at some point in the future everyone will have left and there will only be bots, or dead people's accounts). If fake content generation explodes in the future, then most of the Internet will be untrustworthy and the normal reaction to hearing someone say "I saw on the Internet..." the same as "I saw on The Onion...", not giving any credence to the news.

Well saying that it's all bots is clearly wrong, however, there are credible reports that a not insignificant portion of the posters on X, for example, are bots.