Hacker News Reader

Comment by csallen | Hacker News Reader

I think we're overreacting. Digital fakes will proliferate, and we'll freak out bc it's new. But after a certain amount of time, we'll just get used to it and realize that the world goes on, and whatever major adverse effects actually aren't that difficult to deal with. Which is not the case with nuclear proliferation or things like that.

The story of human history is newer generations freaking about progress and novel changes that have never been seen before. And later generations being perfectly okay with it and adapting to a new style of life.

View on HN

In general I concur but the adaptation doesn't come out of the blue or just only because people get used to it but also because countermeasures are taken, regulations are written and adjustments are made to reduce the negative impact. Also the hyperconnected society is still relatively new and I'm not sure we have adapted for it yet.

Photography and motion pictures were deemed evil. Video games made you a mass murderer. Barcodes somehow seem to affect your health or the freshness of vegetables. The earth is flat.

The issue is that some people believe shit someone tells them and they deny any facts. This has been always a problem. I am all in for labeling content as AI generated. But it wont help with people trying to be malicious or who choose to be dumb. Forcing to watermark every picture made neither, it will turn into a massive problem, its a solid pillar towards full scale surveillance. Just alone the fact that analog cams become by default less trustworthy then any digital device with watermarking is terrible. Even worse, phones will eventually have AI upscaling and similar by default, you can't even make an accurate picture without anything being tagged AI. The information is eventually worthless.

I think the long term effect will be that photos and videos no longer have any evidentiary value legally or socially, absent a trusted chain of custody.

Yes exactly. And this is kind of already played out with text. The printing press came out, literacy increased. Suddenly anyone could write anything and sign anybody else's name to it. There was a trust crisis. Nowadays, we've just gotten used to it and we look at where text came from instead of just what text says.

For example, I'd rather read a tweet from Paul Graham's account than read a screenshot of a Paul Graham tweet that a stranger emailed to me. In the latter case, the source makes me suspicious, so then I go to a more trusted source, e.g. a reputable news organization, or PG's actually X account.

It shouldn’t be that we panic about it and regulate the hell out.

We could use the opportunity to deploy robust systems of verification and validation to all digital works. One that allows for proving authenticity while respecting privacy if desired. For example… it’s insane in the US we revolve around a paper social security number that we know damn well isn’t unique. Or that it’s a massive pain in the ass for most people to even check the hash of a download.

Guess which we’ll do!

instead of making everyone watermark the AI, we should have cameras that take and sign pictures securely. requires hardware!

https://petapixel.com/2024/01/02/cameras-content-authenticit...

seems like a better way

Reply on news.ycombinator.com