General > General Technical Chat
AI as a tool for conspiracy videos
<< < (7/9) > >>
Zero999:

--- Quote from: pcprogrammer on March 08, 2024, 07:36:56 am ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 07, 2024, 07:55:04 pm ---Offence is taken, not given.

--- End quote ---

Not per se. When one intentionally discriminates someone else it will be both if the other person takes offense of of it.

But that is the problem with this issue, it is hard to describe all the different situations that can arise.

Take for example a woman, you don't know and see for the first time, that looks more like a man, and you address the person as a man. She takes offense, being fed up with constantly being addressed as a man. This is basically her problem. But when you see her again and still address her as a man, than you might do it on purpose and it kind of is your problem.

I have no solution for this either and it looks like society is becoming more sensitive, but history reveals it ain't. Humans have always been this way. Gathering in groups for safety and banish the different minded.

--- End quote ---
That's just bullying and is something everyone should have learned to deal with at school. There should be only a couple of times when it's a problem in adulthood, i.e. the bully is in a position of power, or it's a sustained campaign of harassment and there are already laws which deal with that.  There is no need for extra ones based on protected characteristics.


--- Quote from: PlainName on March 07, 2024, 10:37:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 07, 2024, 06:32:34 pm ---There is no fix for this. Unfortunately people will believe what they want to. The same is true for laws designed to suppress misinformation on social media. It's better to allow people to post it, then people are free to debunk it.

--- End quote ---

Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. A debunker will, by definition, be rational and 'straight-up' whereas the conspiracy nut can and will do things the rational person wouldn't. The conspiracy nut plays to the gallery, and knows how to do so (otherwise they would be down in the noise and a nobody). The straight guy wouldn't dream of stooping to such shit. Thus the conspiracy will nearly always win over the debunking.

And... conspiracies usually contain at least one hard fact, and then use that undisputable fact to justify all the following bollocks. It is really hard to debunk a real fact, so you're on a loser before you even start.

--- End quote ---
That isn't the case in my experience. I've seen some videos of people putting forward seemingly rational arguments for, what I would say are fringe ideas (I generally avoid the word conspiracy unless it's something truly crazy) and some debunk videos containing good counterpoints, but delivered in a very aggressive manner. It was very apparent the debunked was angry with the person they were rebuking.

I've also seen what happens when videos get deleted for "spreading misinformation". Regardless of whether it really is misinformation, or not, many people are more likely to believe a video if it's deleted because they see it as the authorities censoring content which doesn't suit their narrative.
RJSV:
   Reader Vad here, (back a few posts) mentions that, to re-state as I understand, the news on CNN vs on Fox is so different, or of such different bias, that it's hard to reconcile the two, and thus one or the other is less reliable.  True.

   However, like on my smartphone this evening, it's hard to see the news, from both sources when only one of those news outlets gets listed in the first place, at least on Google.
Tonight, following the U.S. presidential speech, the search results completely omit any Fox News reference, whatsoever.
   I see MSNBC, repeated over and over, in the search results.   Also, pressing the 'more video's just revealed similar string of:
   MSNBC, PBS, CBS, videos, each slightly different, and in different order, of course, no Fox News, in spite of a healthy decent large market share.
   That's a non-partisan summary, and fair, that I just did, right ?
   I had typed into the search box,
   'State of the Union'
PlainName:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 07, 2024, 11:57:14 pm ---
--- Quote from: PlainName on March 07, 2024, 10:37:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 07, 2024, 06:32:34 pm ---There is no fix for this. Unfortunately people will believe what they want to. The same is true for laws designed to suppress misinformation on social media. It's better to allow people to post it, then people are free to debunk it.

--- End quote ---

Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid.

--- End quote ---
What would you do, then?

--- End quote ---

Don't know. Perhaps, like water running downhill, there isn't a solution.
PlainName:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 08, 2024, 08:23:58 am ---
--- Quote from: PlainName on March 07, 2024, 10:37:55 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on March 07, 2024, 06:32:34 pm ---There is no fix for this. Unfortunately people will believe what they want to. The same is true for laws designed to suppress misinformation on social media. It's better to allow people to post it, then people are free to debunk it.

--- End quote ---

Doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. A debunker will, by definition, be rational and 'straight-up' whereas the conspiracy nut can and will do things the rational person wouldn't. The conspiracy nut plays to the gallery, and knows how to do so (otherwise they would be down in the noise and a nobody). The straight guy wouldn't dream of stooping to such shit. Thus the conspiracy will nearly always win over the debunking.

And... conspiracies usually contain at least one hard fact, and then use that undisputable fact to justify all the following bollocks. It is really hard to debunk a real fact, so you're on a loser before you even start.

--- End quote ---
That isn't the case in my experience. I've seen some videos of people putting forward seemingly rational arguments for, what I would say are fringe ideas (I generally avoid the word conspiracy unless it's something truly crazy) and some debunk videos containing good counterpoints, but delivered in a very aggressive manner. It was very apparent the debunked was angry with the person they were rebuking.

--- End quote ---

You angry debunker didn't get anywhere either, I bet, so not being rational and calm isn't a solution. I also bet they just pissed off people so they weren't listening to what they had to say anyway.

T'other problem is that people have a belief in whatever the conspiracy is, and beliefs are mega-hard to undo. Hardly anyone has a belief in non-conspiracy because, well, there isn't anything to believe or not believe in. The alternative to, say, overhead wires causing cancer isn't "overhead wires don't cause cancer" (oh! that's sure to start a conspiracy just saying that!) because there isn't anything. Nothing to debunk. But show that wires have magnetic fields, some indicating tool, try and turn up something bad about magnetic fields... job's a good 'un. So debunking is always going to be a follow-up to those that already believe.
Sredni:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 07, 2024, 04:25:47 pm ---Factually speaking, there never was a time when one could trust pictures, videos, or recordings as fact.
Even in the early times of these, a century ago, stuff could be faked, and frequently has.

--- End quote ---

Well, I wouldn't be so extreme about this.
Yes, pictures - as in photographs - have always been relatively easy to alter. But what about video? Law enforcement has always been partial to security camera footage, and I can hardly recollect a crook that was caught in a crisp video claim the images were faked by AI. Because that ability was beyond most common people, and even most organizations. Before "The mask", only governments could fake videos in believable manner within a limited time span and with limited resources.
Not anymore, tho. Now almost anyone can fake a video were Mr. Honestguy is seen robbing and beating children. Almost no expertise required. There has to be some sort of 'added trust' to either the system that is recording the video (some sort of anti-tampering date-stamped certification that exclude the possibility of further manipulation after the recording - provided it is even possible), or to the subject recording (police, authorities with a legit warrant). The era of the six-fingered hands and messed up background is headed towards its sunset.

The subject of the linked video does not even require faking real people: quite the contrary, they just invent them out of nowhere and automatically create videos that seed false information on a platform that is notorious for the young age of its viewers. Young age that goes hand in hand with an undeveloped sense of critical thinking (for obvious reasons, we have all been through that!). This is recipe for disaster because it can be used to create false premises and prejudices that can be exploited by bad actors.

I believe the damage that can be done goes well beyond 'stealing views' for monetization. It can literally create a generation of useful idiots that will react to determinate situations in a pavlovian way. "Trusting the institution that tells me this product is poisonous? When they buried the research of Dr. Bimbu on the health benefits of hemlock? No way!"
Of course there are more cogent examples that can be made, but they inevitably stray into politics territory, therefore I will avoid mentioning them.

Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod