Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

behavioralscientist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#71

Post by cb321 »

EGreg wrote: post #11
rightbyte wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Videos and photos have been faked for a long time. Nothing has changed in that regard but decreasing the effort required somewhat.

"Nothing has changed in that regard" really, nothing? Does anyone other than me notice this common tendency on HN: 1. Blockhain use case mentioned? Someone must say "blockchain doesn't solve any problems" no matter what, and always ignoring any actual substance of what's being done until pressed. 2. AI issue mentioned? Someone must say "nothing at all has changed, this problem has always existed" downplaying the vast…

I would just call it a "pattern", but if you want to be more specific Re your 1/2, perhaps a "pattern of over-simplification". Over-simplification is, of course, basically human nature, not specific to HN, and something "scientists" of all stripes fight against in themselves. So, there may be a better one-worder.

EDIT: while oversimplification is essentially always a problem, nuance and persuasion are usually at odds. So, it's especially noticeable in contexts where people are trying to persuade each other. The best parts of HN are not that, but rather where they try to inform each other.

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#72

Post by grues-dinner »

lnrd wrote: post #68
neepi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I await cryptographically signed photos coming out of cameras. Actually I’ve said that should be the case for the last 20 years. You should be able to follow a chain of evidence towards an unprocessed raw image potentially.

What prevents anyone to take a signed picture by photographing a generated/altered picture? You just need to frame it perfectly and make sure there are no reflections that could tell it's a picture of a picture and not a picture of the real world, very doable with a professional camera. All details that could give it out would disappear just lowering the resolution, which can be done in any camera.

With a bit (OK quite a lot) of fiddling, you could probably remove the CCD and feed the analog data into the controller, unless that's also got a crypto system in it.

Presumably if you were discovered you would then "burn" the device as its local key would be known then to be used by bad actors, but now you need to be checking all photos against a blacklist. Which also means if you buy a second hand device, you might be buying a device with "untrusted" output.

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#73

Post by palmotea »

HPsquared wrote: post #2

There was a brief window where photography and videos became widespread so events could be documented and evidenced. Generative AI is drawing that period to an end, and we're returning to "who said / posted this" and having to trust the source rather than the image/message itself. It's a big regression.

> Generative AI is drawing that period to an end, and we're returning to "who said / posted this" and having to trust the source rather than the image/message itself. It's a big regression.

Which just goes to show that one of the core tenets of techno-optimism is a lie.

The Amish (as I understand them) actually have the right idea: instead of wantonly adopting every technology that comes along, they assess how each one affects their values and culture, and pick the ones that help and reject the ones that harm.

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#74

Post by bluebarbet »

Article raised interesting questions but suggested no answers.

To the extent there's a technical fix to this problem of mass gaslighting, surely it's cryptography.

Specifically, the domain name system and TLS certificates, functioning on the web-of-trust principle. It's already up and running. It's good enough to lock down money, so it should be enough to suggest whether a video is legit.

We decide which entities are trustworthy (say: reuters.com, cbc.ca), they vouch for the veracity of all their content, and the rest we assume is fake slop. Done.

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#75

Post by neepi »

bayindirh wrote: post #37
neepi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I await cryptographically signed photos coming out of cameras. Actually I’ve said that should be the case for the last 20 years. You should be able to follow a chain of evidence towards an unprocessed raw image potentially.

I think Nikon and Canon's past cameras had signed photos by default, and you could get the software for verification if you're a police dept or similar. Both manufacturer's keys got extracted from their cameras, rendering the feature moot. Now, a more robust iteration is probably coming, possibly based on secure enclaves. I'd love to have the feature and use it to verify that my images are not corrupted on disk.

Used to work on archival. You want to store your images in TIFF and use FEC if you really care. That withstands significant bitrot. Signing will just tell you that the image is broken but not allow you to recover it. You can do fine with SHA256 and 3-2-1 backup.

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#76

Post by keiferski »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #60
keiferski wrote: post #51

Can someone tell me why this idea isn’t workable and wouldn’t solve most deepfake issues? All camera and phone manufacturers embed a code in each photo / video they produce. All social media channels prioritize content that has these codes, and either block or de-prioritize content without them. Result: the internet is filled with a vast amount of AI generated nonsense, but it’s mostly not treated as anything but ent…

For one it puts a lot of trust into those corporations which they have not earned. Corporations exist to maximize profit. They already sell advertisement to foreign hostile actors. Why wouldn't they do the same with these types of codes for enough payment? Also it gives them a lot of power to frame anyone for anything. How do you defend yourself against a cryptographic framed "proof" that ties you to a crime? At leas…

But this trust is already given to corporations that make printers to prevent counterfeiters. By your logic they would already have sold out to hostile actors.

To your second point: it’s not that my method guarantees absolutely flawless photos. It just makes it more likely to be secure.

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#78

Post by bayindirh »

neepi wrote: post #75
bayindirh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Nikon and Canon's past cameras had signed photos by default, and you could get the software for verification if you're a police dept or similar. Both manufacturer's keys got extracted from their cameras, rendering the feature moot. Now, a more robust iteration is probably coming, possibly based on secure enclaves. I'd love to have the feature and use it to verify that my images are not corrupted on disk.

Used to work on archival. You want to store your images in TIFF and use FEC if you really care. That withstands significant bitrot. Signing will just tell you that the image is broken but not allow you to recover it. You can do fine with SHA256 and 3-2-1 backup.

Thanks for the heads-up, didn't know TIFF/FEC. However, I can't because the images are .ARW (Sony's camera raw format). I keep multiple copies with hashes of them currently. I check the disks periodically.

Mid-term plan is to build an UNRAID array with patrolling. Will probably do backups with Borg on top of it, and keep another "working copy", so I have multiple layers of redundancy with some auto-remediation.

UNRAID will keep disk level consistency in good shape. Patrolling will do checksum tests, Borg can check its own backups against bitrot and can repair them in most cases. Working copy will contain everything and refill if something unthinkable happens.

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#79

Post by AndrewKemendo »

palmotea wrote: post #73
HPsquared wrote: post #2

There was a brief window where photography and videos became widespread so events could be documented and evidenced. Generative AI is drawing that period to an end, and we're returning to "who said / posted this" and having to trust the source rather than the image/message itself. It's a big regression.

> Generative AI is drawing that period to an end, and we're returning to "who said / posted this" and having to trust the source rather than the image/message itself. It's a big regression. Which just goes to show that one of the core tenets of techno-optimism is a lie. The Amish (as I understand them) actually have the right idea: instead of wantonly adopting every technology that comes along, they assess how each o…

Which implies that they have a foundational epistemological, teleological and “coherent” philosophy

Not something that can be said of most people. Worse, the number of affinity groups with long term coherence collapses into niche religions and regional cults.

There’s no free lunch

If you want structural stability then you’re gonna have to give up individuality for the group vector, if you want individuality you’re not going be able to take advantage of group benefits.

Humans are never going to be able to figure out this balance because we don’t have any kind of foundational coherent Universal epistemological grounding that can be universally accepted.

Good luck trying to get the world to even agree on the age of the earth

Re: What Happens When AI-Generated Lies Are More Compelling Than the Truth?

#80

Post by neepi »

perching_aix wrote: post #54
neepi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I await cryptographically signed photos coming out of cameras. Actually I’ve said that should be the case for the last 20 years. You should be able to follow a chain of evidence towards an unprocessed raw image potentially.

Unfortunately that doesn't prove too much. It all hinges on the cameras, which are just computers, operating in a verifiable fashion. Which they don't, as no consumer available computer currently does, and I don't see this changing in the near future, both for technological and political reasons. I put a lot of effort into thinking about what could be proper trustable on photos and videos [0], but short of performing…

Yeah I'm not even talking about that side of things. I'm talking about after it leaves the camera. When someone shows you something, you should be able to say "I want to see the closest to original image". Humans make a lot of changes to images evidently to change perception. Even a simple crop can change the story being told.

A good example: https://imgur.com/iqtFHHg

Post reply on HN