Thought Food

[georged]

The old adage "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see" means people lie and exaggerate, so don't believe what you hear as a categorical thing; and you only know one part of a story when you see something happen, so don't jump to conclusions. Be cautious even then.

Soon, however, the rule will be: "Believe none of what you hear and none of what you see."

Why? Because "laboratory grade" AI can already synthesize both faces and voices convincingly after "studying" someone on video, and soon there will be consumer-level apps that can do it.

Feeling warm and fuzzy about that, I am not.

 

[mingc]

I was hearing on the radio a few months ago about programs that can depict your face and use your voice to speak in multiple languages, even those you don't know. That boggled me.

 

[sablebrush52]

The old adage "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see" means people lie and exaggerate, so don't believe what you hear as a categorical thing; and you only know one part of a story when you see something happen, so don't jump to conclusions. Be cautious even then.

Soon, however, the rule will be: "Believe none of what you hear and none of what you see."

Why? Because "laboratory grade" AI can already synthesize both faces and voices convincingly after "studying" someone on video, and soon there will be consumer-level apps that can do it.

Feeling warm and fuzzy about that, I am not.

Given the premise you just espoused, why should I believe you?
How do I know that you're really George and not AI?

 

[verporchting]

George, are you really a cat?

 

[georged]

Given the premise you just espoused, why should I believe you?
How do I know that you're really George and not AI?

Exactly

 

[Zero]

"The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street"

 

[brian64]

The old adage "Believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see" means people lie and exaggerate, so don't believe what you hear as a categorical thing; and you only know one part of a story when you see something happen, so don't jump to conclusions. Be cautious even then.

Soon, however, the rule will be: "Believe none of what you hear and none of what you see."

Why? Because "laboratory grade" AI can already synthesize both faces and voices convincingly after "studying" someone on video, and soon there will be consumer-level apps that can do it.

Feeling warm and fuzzy about that, I am not.

So, what you're saying is, the government/corporate/media complex will still bullshit the public about everything just like they always do, but technology like this makes it a lot easier. Not to mention how much easier it will make it to frame people.

 

[georged]

So, what you're saying is, the government/corporate/media complex will still bullshit the public about everything just like they always do, but technology like this makes it a lot easier. Not to mention how much easier it will make it to frame people.

Those things will certainly happen.

The fundamental shift is the meat of it, though. Which is that proof of innocence, not proof of guilt, will become the new normal. Everywhere, for everything, with everyone.

From pissed off one-time girlfriends showing your WIFE things that never happened, to jealous co-workers showing your BOSS things that never happened, to politicians showing the PUBLIC things their opponents did that never happend. In every case, the burden will be on the accused to prove their innocence.

 

[mso489]

I call it the burden of skepticism. We're all pretty well trained to doubt all advertising until it is proven (at maximum) slightly true. All emails, broadcasting, wifi, cable/satellite, snail mail, and door-to-door solicitations are to be regarded as scams until proven otherwise, and usually not even then.

Because we all need some ground of belief, we have to be careful of people appealing to that. As a friend of mine used to say, these people are only human, and even that hasn't been established. It can be a sour way to live, so improvements would be welcome. But beware.