232
Why isn't everyone talking about AI generated audiobooks?
(reddthat.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
232 points (94.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43843 readers
696 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Witness testimony is already a very unreliable source of evidence. And again, evidence can be planted. Hell there was doubt about the chain of custody before AI could just make up audio and video. The validity of the chain of custody boils down to the cops and government in general being trusted enough to not falsify it when it suits them.
Sufficiently advanced AI can, and eventually will, be capable of creating deepfakes that cant reliably be proven to be false. Every test that can be done to authenticate that media can be used by the AI to select generated media that would pass scrutiny in principle.
I love the optimism and I hope you're right but I don't think you are. I think that deepfake AI should scare people a whole lot more than it does.
There are ways to cryptographically validate chain of custody. If we're in a world where only video with valid chain of custody can be used in court then those methods will see widespread adoption. You also didn't address any of the other kinds of evidence that I mentioned AI being unable to tamper with. Sure, you can generate a video of someone doing something horrible. But in a world where it is known that you can generate such videos, what jury would ever convict someone based solely on a video like that? It's frankly ridiculous.
This is very much the typical fictional dystopia scenario where one assumes all the possible negative uses of the technology will work fine but ignore all the ways of being able to counter those negative uses. You can spin a scary sci-fi tale from such speculation but it's not really a useful way of predicting how the actual future is likely to go.