NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

I know there are a lot of groups working on how to prevent AI disruptions to society, or how to mitigate their impact, but are there any groups working on how to adapt society to a full blown unchained AI world?

Like throw out all the safeguards (which seems inevitable) and how does society best operate in a world where no media can be trusted as authentic? Or where "authentic" is cut from the same cloth as "fake"? Is anyone working on this?

Something I've wondered lately is what will life be like in a post-truth society? we already see examples of this now where a large number of people get their news from fake memes on facebook. There are huge swathes of people who live in their own make-believe world, like those believing wholeheartedly that the 2020 election was stolen.

What will life be like when you can't trust any video or interview you see because it could be completely fake? How long before someone uses this technology to frame someone for a crime? Could the FBI create a deepfake of a cartel leader meeting with them and leak it so they think he's a snitch?

I don't think we'll have the ability to handle this kind of tech responsibly.

Very much agreed. It just results in a terrible UX when 98% of other websites have a standard scrolling mechanism

I suspect we'll need to return to the idea of getting our news from trusted sources, rather than being able to rely on videos on social media being trustworthy.

Technically, we could try and build a trusted computing-like system to ensure trust from the sensor all the way to a signed video file output, but keeping that perfectly secure is likely to be virtually impossible except in narrow situations, such as CCTV installations. I believe Apple may be attempting to do things like this with how Face ID is implemented on iPhone, but I suspect we'll always find ways to trick any such device.

The thing I don't like about these 'well people have been complaining about this forever' arguments is that, it's entirely possible to have a) people pointing at an issue for a long time and b) still have that issue get progressively, objectively worse over time.

There's that example of people pointing out smartphones might be bad for children, then someone counters with 'well thirty years ago people complained about children reading too much instead of playing outside', with the implication being: adults of all ages will find some fault with newer generations, and not to worry so much.

But just because it is true that adults will probably always worry about 'new, evil things' corrupting the youth, this does not mean that the 'new, evil things' aren't getting _objectively more dangerous_ over time. Today adults would be happy if children still had the attention span and motivation necessary to read a book. They'd be happy if they themselves still had it, actually.

Graphing the progress of a sinking ship and pointing out that the downwards gradient has been stable for a while now and we should therefore be okay is generally not a useful extrapolation, I would say.