this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
110 points (90.4% liked)

Technology

59377 readers
5196 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Thanks to rapid advancements in generative AI and a glut of training data created by human actors that has been fed into its AI model, Synthesia has been able to produce avatars that are indeed more humanlike and more expressive than their predecessors. The digital clones are better able to match their reactions and intonation to the sentiment of their scripts—acting more upbeat when talking about happy things, for instance, and more serious or sad when talking about unpleasant things. They also do a better job matching facial expressions—the tiny movements that can speak for us without words. 

But this technological progress also signals a much larger social and cultural shift. Increasingly, so much of what we see on our screens is generated (or at least tinkered with) by AI, and it is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish what is real from what is not. This threatens our trust in everything we see, which could have very real, very dangerous consequences. 

“I think we might just have to say goodbye to finding out about the truth in a quick way,” says Sandra Wachter, a professor at the Oxford Internet Institute, who researches the legal and ethical implications of AI. “The idea that you can just quickly Google something and know what’s fact and what’s fiction—I don’t think it works like that anymore.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sgibson5150@slrpnk.net 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I had anticipated that there would be an uptick in cryptographic signing to combat the problem as this sort of fakery has become ubiquitous, which in my mind would assure the recipient of a file that

A) the file is unaltered after the date/time of the signing B) that the file was created by the named photographer or videographer

This is not proof of authenticity but with a verifiable source, the file recipient could at least judge for themselves based on the reputation of the file creator (say, a notable AP photojournalist vs. some random schmoe).

Thus far, whenever I have raised this idea in a public forum, it has met with silence or even derision. What am I missing?

[–] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It takes an extra 2 minutes, that’s why its dead in the water. People go who would spend x amount of time to deepfake me that I should spend an extra two minutes on assuring integrity? And well for most of the population they are probably right.

[–] sgibson5150@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 months ago

I suppose you are correct, but it seems like a standard could be adopted to automate the process for both the creator and the consumer. And while the system would work for any creator, it seems most important to be able to ensure the integrity of the work product of journalistic professionals.