General > General Technical Chat

AI as a tool for conspiracy videos

<< < (8/9) > >>

Sredni:

--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 08, 2024, 08:04:32 am ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on March 07, 2024, 12:06:40 pm ---I wonder when will we see electronics- based conspiracy videos...
Something like:
"Andrew Miller is a former NASA researcher that built a 1 GHz digital oscilloscope using old CRT television parts and beer cans. He was about to publish his research online, to allow everyone to be able to access top notch electronic instrumentation virtually for free, when a hitman hired by Big Tech teleported his brain on Mars, leaving him in a vegetative state".
Should be the next logical step, after the microwave transformer water pump and the evergreen over unity device.

--- End quote ---

Next to no market for such content. Which is why all the crap AI content sticks with stuff that gets views, like anything to do with Musk.

--- End quote ---

Ok, that was a joke, but what if someone made hundreds of videos showing technicians having trouble with their instruments - for example a blue DMM of the same type you sell, or a red one that reminds of Uni-T, or an orange one that reminds of Agilent, or... just pick a company to damage - without even mentioning the instrument brand.
People getting spurious results, getting shocked by the probes, having the batteries die on them...

It's soon going to be doable without having to hire and pay actors. It probably can be safely done from a legal point of view by avoiding to mention or even show the brand. Brand which can be inferred from other signs, a là Lubitsch. Or, if you live in a country that does not enforce business protection laws, just lie and show the instruments. I am not talking about videos focused on the problematic instruments, but almost legit videos where useful information is actually given but in a large number of occurrences that darn EEVBlog/Uni-T/Agilent/whatever multimeter makes it hard to get to the truth...

Automate the production of these 'tutorials' and disseminate hundreds or thousands of them on multiple channels/platforms and instrument X will be treated like Duracell batteries when it comes to leaks.
It is getting way to easy to sway public opinion...

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: Sredni on March 08, 2024, 07:12:56 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
They treat security camera footage as they treat eyewitness statements.  It is not like having security camera footage leads to open-and-close case; it's more like having eyewitnesses with no connections to the case provide a clear statement.


--- Quote from: Sredni on March 08, 2024, 07:12:56 pm ---Because that ability was beyond most common people, and even most organizations.
--- End quote ---
There are hundred year old movies with pretty good trick photography and effects.  The reason it hasn't been done (or if it has, not much) is that it has thus far been cheaper to just hire liars with good reputations to provide false eyewitness accounts, with similar effects as security camera footage would have had.

The only real solution is to teach people to think critically for themselves, instead of believing.  Nothing has really changed here, except that lying in a convincing manner is now practically free and available for everyone.

langwadt:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 08, 2024, 08:14:26 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on March 08, 2024, 07:12:56 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
They treat security camera footage as they treat eyewitness statements.  It is not like having security camera footage leads to open-and-close case; it's more like having eyewitnesses with no connections to the case provide a clear statement.

--- End quote ---

https://www.bigvalleylaw.com/blog/2021/11/why-eyewitness-testimony-is-notoriously-unreliable/

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: langwadt on March 08, 2024, 08:39:16 pm ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on March 08, 2024, 08:14:26 pm ---
--- Quote from: Sredni on March 08, 2024, 07:12:56 pm ---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
--- End quote ---
They treat security camera footage as they treat eyewitness statements.  It is not like having security camera footage leads to open-and-close case; it's more like having eyewitnesses with no connections to the case provide a clear statement.

--- End quote ---
https://www.bigvalleylaw.com/blog/2021/11/why-eyewitness-testimony-is-notoriously-unreliable/

--- End quote ---
Yep.  This is also why the security camera footage doesn't simply stand on its own, you'll almost always see someone testifying that the person seen in the footage is the person being accused.  In harder cases, you even see experts testifying on whether the footage has signs of tampering or not.  This is like bolstering the eyewitness and their statement: for example, you'd trust an active air force pilot to recognize other airplanes much better than a common person.

Qualitatively, you could say that security camera footage corresponds to testimony by someone trained in observation, or something; but essentially, the same rules apply as to eyewitnesses.  The fact that videos are now much easier to fake, only changes the "default reliability" assigned to security camera footage or cellphone recordings; it does not actually change much in legal proceedings.  It is very similar to if lying became socially acceptable, as if people didn't care about committing perjury anymore.

PlainName:
I used to work for a CCTV company and we would sometimes extract video for the police. Since it comes direct from the recorder and we, the company, have no interest in faking anything, it was treated as reliable.

And that's pretty much the situation with news and stuff. You'd see something on, say, the BBC and have a reasonable trust that it's not been faked. OTOH, the Daily Mail won't have faked stuff per se, but what they do have is 'alternative facts' for it. Similarly, there are Youtube channels that can be pretty sure are straight up and others that you only trust that they are faking something, you just don't know what yet.

I think the problems with the likes of AI video and stuff are not that they fool us, but that they might fool our trusted sources.

That's not to say that we should be 'doing our own research' because, frankly, if you can't trust anything then how can you trust your research? Who are you going to learn from if you can't trust anyone or any source? We offload that kind of thing to those that we are pretty sure can figure it out and explain it to us - our trusted sources.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod