AI as a tool for conspiracy videos

[Sredni]

We are living in interesting times. 🤔
IIRC Dave made a video about AI generated technology channels that posted videos about supposedly interesting innovative discoveries that were actually void of any meaning. The content was clearly made up using buzz words to capture the viewer attention, and the visuals were pieces of stolen or stock videos vaguely related to the topic.

AI has made all of this even easier to create:

https://youtu.be/X66MGRN364c?si=S_5U7EYsY9gZf0jz

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.

[tom66]

This is just a proof of concept kind of thing but it is a little terrifying...  The age of being able to trust a video is gone.
https://www.twitch.tv/trumporbiden2024

Trying to avoid turning this into a political debate but it's quite impressive how the AI has picked up on the nuances in the behaviour of the two candidates/presidents.  It is clearly marked as AI generated, but that's easy to remove.  The only oddities remain the occasional glitches as the characters go in between states, but I am sure that could be removed with a little more effort...

[xrunner]

It's just the beginning of all this. Sure a country can try and regulate AI videos but other state actors will not. Soon (if not already) average people won't be able to tell what's true or false by viewing a video on TV or YT. The quality will only improve. Think of the ramifications on politics just for starters. I don't have any answers though ... 

[LaserSteve]

I know an older Doctoral student who faced an accusation of cheating after an AI scanning an essay said he used AI for the paper.  He calmly asked to sit in a computer free office and write an essay on any reasonable topic. That scored as AI assisted on that one also.

There is a joke about passing the Turing Test in there  somewhere. However by day he is a high ranking campus official.  He is not happy about the situation.

I'm unemployed at the moment, recruiters use AI to process resumes, and I see five things:



1. AI overinflates my skill set, suggesting me for jobs I do not qualify for.

 2. AI is harshly critical on dates and overdependent on databases.  What I do, and what my degree says are TWO different things.

3. Many recruiters use it to generate H1B requests to lower costs. I get "fake" recruitng by the ton.  I've called potential employers to find no opening existed.

4. It strongly makes assumptions on  automotive travel as a factor in recruiting. Recruiters assume it is accurate it predicting if I will show up for work based solely on distance. Heaven help you if your  mailing address is different  from your working address.  The software will toss you if your commute is longer then twenty minutes by car.

5. Recruiters use AI to try to bid temp to hire candidates for  positions for full time job listings.  I get offered "22$ an hour  W2"   For those that don't know, W2 is a US end of fiscal year  tax document.  It's also a trick to avoid providing benefits.

No one in their right mind accepts a job based solely on the w2.

Steve

[Nominal Animal]

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.

The solution is not more control.  The only working solution is to teach people to rely on multiple sources and think for themselves, before believing in something.  Trust whoever you want, but verify.

Of course, that is not possible for a large fraction of the population, because they have neither the skills nor the inclination to think for themselves.  This is nothing new: "bread and circuses".

[pcprogrammer]

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.

Like the moon landing 

The solution is not more control.  The only working solution is to teach people to rely on multiple sources and think for themselves, before believing in something.  Trust whoever you want, but verify.

Of course, that is not possible for a large fraction of the population, because they have neither the skills nor the inclination to think for themselves.  This is nothing new: "bread and circuses".

With more control people will just think that the government is lying to them. 

There is no solution for this. A lot of people think they are thinking and still think the earth is flat 

Even though verifying against multiple sources, it might still not reveal the truth, because all the sources you can tap can be wrong. In lots of cases I have concluded that the truth lies in the middle somewhere, but that I will never know it.

[xrunner]

People will use the wrong logic, as they have when I've debated them on other topics in person (I won't mention the specific topic (it isn't politics) for fear of creating a dumpster fire here  )

Believer: I just saw a video of a certain political candidate smoking crack with a porn star! It's undeniable look at the video!

Me: Well I did, it looks pretty real but can you prove it isn't an AI created video? You should be careful about this.

Believer: Huh? Why don't you prove it ISN'T real!

Me: I've been through this before and it doesn't end well ... have a nice day. 

[Nominal Animal]

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.

Like the moon landing 

Even though verifying against multiple sources, it might still not reveal the truth, because all the sources you can tap can be wrong. In lots of cases I have concluded that the truth lies in the middle somewhere, but that I will never know it.

That is the nature of life and knowledge.  Even if you rely on your own experience, you haven't experienced all that is possible, so what you perceive as the factual truth based on your own experience, often is not so in a more general context.

My solution is an attitude change: "This is my current understanding, but it will change as I learn more.  How, I cannot predict."
Some other people cannot base on their life on that, instead need axiomatic truths or beliefs they can base their life on, like religious or philosophical tenets.

[langwadt]

People will use the wrong logic, as they have when I've debated them on other topics in person (I won't mention the specific topic (it isn't politics) for fear of creating a dumpster fire here  )

Believer: I just saw a video of a certain political candidate smoking crack with a porn star! It's undeniable look at the video!

Me: Well I did, it looks pretty real but can you prove it isn't an AI created video? You should be careful about this.

Believer: Huh? Why don't you prove it ISN'T real!

Me: I've been through this before and it doesn't end well ... have a nice day. 

the thing is, the more AI (or human) generated fakes that are out there, say about a certain politician, the easier it is for people to dismiss the real stuff as probably false too. Drown the real bad stuff in a sea of fake bad stuff

[Zero999]

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.

Like the moon landing 

The solution is not more control.  The only working solution is to teach people to rely on multiple sources and think for themselves, before believing in something.  Trust whoever you want, but verify.

Of course, that is not possible for a large fraction of the population, because they have neither the skills nor the inclination to think for themselves.  This is nothing new: "bread and circuses".

With more control people will just think that the government is lying to them. 

There is no solution for this. A lot of people think they are thinking and still think the earth is flat 

Even though verifying against multiple sources, it might still not reveal the truth, because all the sources you can tap can be wrong. In lots of cases I have concluded that the truth lies in the middle somewhere, but that I will never know it.

It's certainly true that governments do lie. I do agree that laws are not the solution here. Authoritarianism tends to make the poplation more prone to conspiracy theories.

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.

[pcprogrammer]

It's certainly true that governments do lie. I do agree that laws are not the solution here. Authoritarianism tends to make the poplation more prone to conspiracy theories.

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.

As we live in an overly regulated world with more laws then ever, people are already more then fed up, but allowing full freedom of speech on the internet is very very dangerous. On the one hand I'm all for freedom of speech, but one also has to bare in mind what consequences there are when posting something, and there in lies the problem. Sometimes it is hard to see why something is a problem and why some individual or larger group takes offense of it, and on the other side it is also true that some take offense to easily.

Human emotions and feelings are very complex and also kind of fashion driven. Today it is a lot about gender, so many years ago it was more about religion or race, etc. To me one thing is for sure, the human race is not capable of finding a sustainable balance, and this whole AI thing is not going to help with it either.

[Zero999]

It's certainly true that governments do lie. I do agree that laws are not the solution here. Authoritarianism tends to make the poplation more prone to conspiracy theories.

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.

As we live in an overly regulated world with more laws then ever, people are already more then fed up, but allowing full freedom of speech on the internet is very very dangerous. On the one hand I'm all for freedom of speech, but one also has to bare in mind what consequences there are when posting something, and there in lies the problem. Sometimes it is hard to see why something is a problem and why some individual or larger group takes offense of it, and on the other side it is also true that some take offense to easily.

Human emotions and feelings are very complex and also kind of fashion driven. Today it is a lot about gender, so many years ago it was more about religion or race, etc. To me one thing is for sure, the human race is not capable of finding a sustainable balance, and this whole AI thing is not going to help with it either.

Offence is taken, not given.

Absolute free speech isn't allowed. Calling for violence is generally illegal, even in the freest of societies.

The problem with laws aimed at dealing with misinformation is no single authority can be trusted to be the sole arbiter of the truth. A law designed to tackle medical misinformation, say anti-vax conspiracy theories or the promotion of bogus cancer treatments, might sound good on the face of it, but the law itself has the potential to be far more dangerous, given the power of the pharmaceutical industry and how common medical reversals are. It has the potential to stop doctors from questioning the efficacy of medical treatments and raising the alarm of serious adverse safety signals.

[Nominal Animal]

but allowing full freedom of speech on the internet is very very dangerous. On the one hand I'm all for freedom of speech, but one also has to bare in mind what consequences there are when posting something, and there in lies the problem.

Even if they hoodwink millions of people, publishing conspiracy theories or silly beliefs on the internet is not a fraction of the danger of restricting speech to officially sanctioned speech, based on historical precedence.

What we consider the absolutely unassailable truth today, may tomorrow reveal to be a misunderstanding or a lie.  We cannot know, and it is always a possibility.

The Roman Catholic Inquisition did not find Galileo Galilei a heretic because they were evil conniving bastards; they genuinely believed they were a force for the good, and that Galileo was the bad guy, sowing misinformation among people.  The exact same situation is being repeated by calling differing opinions "misinformation" or "conspiracy theories" and therefore not part of allowable speech, just because they disagree with some specific panel or subset of people.  No difference at all.

I personally draw the line at defamation and promoting/suggesting crime.  It is nowhere near perfect solution, but comparing to historical precendence, seems to have the best balance.

[RJSV]

   Funny thing is, when this thread showed up, with a truthful title and no games;  I noticed I didn't get nervous / suspicious, (like sometimes, lol).
   We gonna have to live with the AI, either way, it's here.   I guess, people lie, and people do cultivate some protective mechanisms, to Tigger various suspicions.
   I STILL suspect our local Postman, of chasing my wife.....and I'm single!

[Perkele]

   I STILL suspect our local Postman, of chasing my wife.....and I'm single!

You're wrong. It's the milkman.

[langwadt]

It's certainly true that governments do lie. I do agree that laws are not the solution here. Authoritarianism tends to make the poplation more prone to conspiracy theories.

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.

As we live in an overly regulated world with more laws then ever, people are already more then fed up, but allowing full freedom of speech on the internet is very very dangerous. On the one hand I'm all for freedom of speech, but one also has to bare in mind what consequences there are when posting something, and there in lies the problem. Sometimes it is hard to see why something is a problem and why some individual or larger group takes offense of it, and on the other side it is also true that some take offense to easily.

Human emotions and feelings are very complex and also kind of fashion driven. Today it is a lot about gender, so many years ago it was more about religion or race, etc. To me one thing is for sure, the human race is not capable of finding a sustainable balance, and this whole AI thing is not going to help with it either.

Offence is taken, not given.

Absolute free speech isn't allowed. Calling for violence is generally illegal, even in the freest of societies.

The problem with laws aimed at dealing with misinformation is no single authority can be trusted to be the sole arbiter of the truth. A law designed to tackle medical misinformation, say anti-vax conspiracy theories or the promotion of bogus cancer treatments, might sound good on the face of it, but the law itself has the potential to be far more dangerous, given the power of the pharmaceutical industry and how common medical reversals are. It has the potential to stop doctors from questioning the efficacy of medical treatments and raising the alarm of serious adverse safety signals.

and banning something, only serves as confirmation and strengthens the conspiracy theorists belief that the something is the truth "the authorities" don't want the people to know about

[soldar]

I often tutor my 13 year old wife's nephew. Recently he had to write an essay about a certain period of American history and he worked on it and then I spent a couple hours talking with him about the topic so he spent more time on this than the issue really required .

He turned in his essay and a few days later was distraught when he was told the teacher had graded him zero because she believed it was not his work and he had used AI to write the essay. Her only proof was that she thought the writing was not quite his style.

Poor kid was distraught and we tried to cheer him up saying it showed he had done very well and we would email the teacher saying we had seen him do the work and even tutored him. Which we did.

Teacher, bitter old maid, did not even reply to our email and tried to avoid the kid when he would go to talk to her. Finally she said she still did not believe him but she would give him a low but passing grade. And that he shouldn't listen to family members who "are not experts". The stupidity of all this is just staggering. She just does not want to concede and I suppose she thought maintaining the zero grade would result in escalating the issue, which she did not want.

It would have been much more reasonable for her to call him in and question him regarding the essay and it would have been very apparent whether he knew the substance of the topic or whether that was not his work.

So kid has learnt a different lesson: that life is not always fair and that people with power over you can screw you and there's not much you can do. Just hope that next year you have a different teacher, a less incompetent teacher.

And that is my AI anecdote today. More about human stupidity than AI though.

[SiliconWizard]

You can only help people build critical thought and learn how to check facts and evidences through education.
Any attempt to do that for them by law is totalitarian in nature and bound to make them more stupid, more dependent and make the very few that statistically will still exist with an ounce of critical thought become paranoid.

[PlainName]

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.

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.

[RJSV]

   (Soldar:)
(Nicely written, uh, hmmm ?....Now I'm starting to wonder?...No, can't be,)

   Soldar:   Don't worry, too much about current unfairness, of, like you said, people with power over others.   KARMA, remember ?   Takes time to manifest, sometimes.

   I had the advantageous POWER setting, in one season, unaware of the whole karma dynamic.
Abuse reined unchecked for a (short) time.   Others weren't happy, that's for sure!   But later my own karma caught up...

   Or, other way around, I've been on receiving end, of 'unfairness', where the dirty perpetrators got a serving of fate, and rather quick, while I was gone from the scene.

   Maybe always doesn't go that way, but I've been told that it nearly always does.   Maybe you could tell kid that:   Mind your own (karma) is a factor known by many,  or used to be.

[Nominal Animal]

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.

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

What would you do, then?  Allow someone or a panel to judge what is misinformation and what is not?  One such panel was called the inquisition.
Or do you think the inquisition back then was evil and staffed with bad people, and that if you choose better people now, the results will be any different?

[tom66]

You can only help people build critical thought and learn how to check facts and evidences through education.
Any attempt to do that for them by law is totalitarian in nature and bound to make them more stupid, more dependent and make the very few that statistically will still exist with an ounce of critical thought become paranoid.

Doesn't help when people become increasingly disconnected from the real world, only getting their news via social media, now flooded with this crap.

[Infraviolet]

"The age of being able to trust a video is gone"
I think it went a long time ago. For decades we've had adequate enough special effects to fake a video by adding elements (or rmoeving things) which weren't in the scene the camera was recording, and for as long as even still cameras have existed it has always been possible to selectively pose and aim the camera so it shows what the photographer wants. The camera does not need to lie, in the image editing way, if the image taken has been selected cunningly enough.

The main reason that "AI generated disinformation" seems to make headlines now is because a bunch of failed cademics decided they could invent "disinformation studies" as a cover for their inability to do worthwhile research, then a bunch of governments found that those disinformation "professionals" could be handy allies in their efforts to ensure that only the narratives the big political parties approve of ever get told. Disinformation, misinformation, lies, damned lies (and statistics for dishonest purposes) aren't new, the camera lying isn't new, the main thing that is new is a desire by people in power to tar everything with the disinfo brush.

[vad]

It's just the beginning of all this. Sure a country can try and regulate AI videos but other state actors will not. Soon (if not already) average people won't be able to tell what's true or false by viewing a video on TV or YT.

We're already at that point even without AI interference. Watching the same news on Fox and CNN might leave one uncertain about which media outlet is telling the truth, if any…

[Nominal Animal]

Doesn't help when people become increasingly disconnected from the real world, only getting their news via social media, now flooded with this crap.

We've lost them already.  They're turning into a hive subspecies, exhibiting increasing hive/nesting behaviour and isolating themselves from objective reality.

I wish I was kidding.