I think that any definition you come up with can be applied to synthesizers, photoshop, and CGI.
I suspect the opposite. Rick Beato did a video talking about AI generated music. His kids and all of their peers were able to identify AI songs immediately. Like to the point where he’d be listening to something, his kid would walk by and here it from the other side of a doorway, and immediately ask him, “Why are you listening to AI music?”
The younger generation that grows up with AI tools being normal will be FAR more savvy about them than older generations. Just like boomers who grew up before the internet are less sophisticated and aware about being able to catch internet scams and doctored images.
My money is that the younger generation coming up will behave like every other prior generation and respond with rebellion and punk ethos. They’ll look at AI art and intentionally create things that are the opposite of it, and/or will take AI and turn it inside out to subvert it.
This doesn’t represent getting AI to do anything fundamentally new though. It’s a refinement of what AI has been doing.
It is more realistic and will fool more people. But only because it’s new and so isn’t normal.
Once this technology grows and becomes normal, it won’t be able to fool anyone anymore. Instead, it will cause people to distrust everything that looks like it could have been done by AI.
People won’t respond by taking more time looking deeper. They’ll respond by assuming all things that look like this are probably AI. They will then intentionally create things in a contrary style to differentiate themselves and prove that they’re real.
Then either this is not “fake”, or all mockumentaries are “fake”.
That’s also getting a bit political for this space. Whether or not I agree with you, I’vre really really enjoyed having this space be free of current politics.
She said that in 2017 so not really current. But definitely relevant.
I think you may place to much trust in peoples ability to use logic and reasoning.
I don’t know your field but mine (construction) is full of the hard of thinking. For whom AI alternative facts will become the truth. Sad but there it is.
I want to get away from politics leaning towards either side but what @Barney brought up is indeed my fear and not tied to any particular point on the political spectrum.
Not going to call out bona fides or anything but based on pretty extensive prior study of the subject, this scares me as an effective propaganda tool. And not just eventually - now. It’s almost there.
But that is not unique. History is full of new and effective propaganda tools. All of which, when they are introduced, are met with the same sort of doomsaying that we are now leveling at AI. Society always finds ways to adapt.
I agree the technology is there now to spread misinformation. I’m saying that we’re now at the moment when it is most dangerous, but that the danger will actually decrease as society understands this new technology better and adapts. Which is what we have done with all previous technologies.
I’m not arguing that people aren’t stupid and gullible. I’m saying that they always have been. And we’ve always gotten by anyway.
The problem with a topic like this is that there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don’t know we don’t know
I would love to get to a place where we can all agree that making fun of Donald Rumsfeld is not a partisan issue. Laughing at incompetence is like an American national pastime.
I think what we have seen over the last 5-6 decades can be broken down in to two areas of advancement:
overall effectiveness of the media used
acceleration/velocity of the spread of misinformation
What scares me is that the latter one may achieve a rate faster than society’s ability to deal with it, and advances in the former magnify the impact of that; this could get real bad.
Yes the underlying concept was important (and a long method of decision matrix analysis) but the context was being questioned on justification for war and as such it was a pretty weak response. And left out the elephant in the room that was the actual problem (and, in the end, what they were being questioned about) - what they actually knew and chose to ignore due to their own biases.
Flooding the field with bullshit isn’t a new concept. I think it’s kicking into overdrive to the point that it’s a never ending fire hose now. You can’t even take the time to debunk things before the next “OMG” whatever it is, has become the big outrage of the moment. Because nobody actually cares whether something’s been debunked or not, it’s still available as a cudgel to beat the other side with later on.
