> A blockchain could be a way to store and publish that signature & hash. yes but it would be a bad one. We have multiple key distribution mechanism that are better for the use case.
I disagree. The key alone is not sufficient nor secure. We will need crowdsourced validity data as well. We need a zero-trust model - and I too believe that blockchains will play a role.
If a video is already cryptographcally signed, then you can safely distribute the signature on an untrusted channel.
Adding Blockchain into the mix is superfluous, and destroys scalability.
Well... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/01/ghost-of-kyi... admitted by Ukrainians themselves...
According to an article you found online. That's exactly my point, if we can't trust news sources then we can't really know anything. Because of my aforementioned distrust of Fox News, if it were written by them I'd dismiss that article out of hand placing no truth value on it either way. I'd expect somebody that distrusts CNN to do the same if it were written by them. "It's confirmed!", "They admitted it!", and othe…
If the accused admit to something it's more believable than the alternative (that they were forced into false admission).
So in this case if the Ukrainian government admit to making things up then I would think it's believable that they made something up for the sake of propaganda. We can also check more independent sources --read Japanese news, or Indian news sources, etc.
This doesn’t bother me that much because evidence isn’t required to convince millions of people that a lie is true. We already know this. Why make fake evidence that could be debunked when you can just have no evidence instead?
Different instruments can be used to capture different segments of the population. You’re right there are gullible people who are more likely to believe things with limited or no evidence. But it isn’t necessarily about the most impressionable people, nor is it about installing sincerely held beliefs. Instead, what may be a cause for concern is simply the installation of doubt in an otherwise reasonable person becaus…
This discussion isn't useful because you're assuming people actually care if something is true before they "believe" it, which they don't, so they don't need evidence. "Believing" doesn't even mean people actually hold beliefs. It means they're willing to agree with something in public, and that's just tribal affiliation.
There are more dangereous AI than deepfakes. Blackrock 10 trillions investments are driven by an AI, Aladdin. It was also sold to some other investors, and controls about 21$ trillion globally. It has basically the power to drive markets worldwide. It's a systemic problem nobody talks about...
Blackrock sells passive index funds. There's no room for an AI to make decisions there, so it probably doesn't do anything interesting.
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 becaus…
I think the uncomfortable truth is that we're already there and it just doesn't matter because everything works on trust anyway. Sure, quality faked media has a ways to go before you're watching an Avengers quality deepfake porn but for groups that care to a professional degree (intelligence agencies, militaries, digital media companies, etc.) the quality is already good enough for intelligently planted media. The real limiter is access to trusted distribution channels for your faked media. A homunculi media consumer who gets their information from AP News/Reuters/Fox News/CNN/LA Times/New York Times/Verified Twitter Professionals/etc. is probably not at all in a position to judge the veracity of the material presented. If they were in a position to make such judgements they wouldn't need to care so much about whichprestigious media outlets they favor. But they do care, precisely because they know that they're gullible and so they want the media outlet that will give them the real truth (which usually means either the truth they like or the truth they don't like but from a brand that conforms to their ideals of what a news media brand should be). If CNN and Fox News both ran the same deepfaked video of Joe Biden shooting his veep with supplementary text stories and such then I wager a good portion of the American populace would believe it had happened and have serious conern.
According to an article you found online. That's exactly my point, if we can't trust news sources then we can't really know anything. Because of my aforementioned distrust of Fox News, if it were written by them I'd dismiss that article out of hand placing no truth value on it either way. I'd expect somebody that distrusts CNN to do the same if it were written by them. "It's confirmed!", "They admitted it!", and othe…
If the accused admit to something it's more believable than the alternative (that they were forced into false admission). So in this case if the Ukrainian government admit to making things up then I would think it's believable that they made something up for the sake of propaganda. We can also check more independent sources --read Japanese news, or Indian news sources, etc.
We don't know that the accused admitted to anything. We know that the Washington Post says that they did. The world becomes very solipsistic when you lose trust in reporting.
I disagree. The key alone is not sufficient nor secure. We will need crowdsourced validity data as well. We need a zero-trust model - and I too believe that blockchains will play a role.
If a video is already cryptographcally signed, then you can safely distribute the signature on an untrusted channel. Adding Blockchain into the mix is superfluous, and destroys scalability.
We don't watch signature keys - we watch videos.
The TV will have to match every short segment - perhaps 5 seconds of video - against a blockchain which scores the validity of that segment - and of course looking back to it's original source. Signing the whole video is necessary but not sufficient.
Different instruments can be used to capture different segments of the population. You’re right there are gullible people who are more likely to believe things with limited or no evidence. But it isn’t necessarily about the most impressionable people, nor is it about installing sincerely held beliefs. Instead, what may be a cause for concern is simply the installation of doubt in an otherwise reasonable person becaus…
This discussion isn't useful because you're assuming people actually care if something is true before they "believe" it, which they don't, so they don't need evidence. "Believing" doesn't even mean people actually hold beliefs. It means they're willing to agree with something in public, and that's just tribal affiliation.
Different instruments can be used to capture different segments of the population. You’re right there are gullible people who are more likely to believe things with limited or no evidence. But it isn’t necessarily about the most impressionable people, nor is it about installing sincerely held beliefs. Instead, what may be a cause for concern is simply the installation of doubt in an otherwise reasonable person becaus…
This discussion isn't useful because you're assuming people actually care if something is true before they "believe" it, which they don't, so they don't need evidence. "Believing" doesn't even mean people actually hold beliefs. It means they're willing to agree with something in public, and that's just tribal affiliation.
>you're assuming people actually care if something is true before they "believe" it, which they don't
This seems like an assumption too. I know there are instances like you’ve described but they’re not absolute nor universal and I accounted for that in my original comment.