I tried the image of this real actual road collapse: https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/60-mennesker-isolert-etter-veiras/12875776

I told ChatGPT it was fake and asked it to explain why. It assured me I was a special boy asking valid questions and helpfully made up some claims.

They needed time for their journalists to get there. They're too busy on the beaches counting migrant boat crossings.

I am guessing the reporter wanted to remind people tools exist for this, however the reporter isn't tech savvy enough to realize ChatGPT isn't one of them.

My best guess is SEO. Journalism that mentions ChatGPT gets more hits. It might be they did use a specialist or specialized software and the editor was like "Say it was ChatGPT, otherwise people get confused, and we get more views. No one's going to fact check whether or not someone used ChatGPT."

That's just my wild, somewhat informed speculation.

Disagree. Without Section 230 (or equivalent laws of their respective jurisdictions) your Fediverse instance would be forced to moderate even harder in fear of legal action. I mean, who even decides what "AI deception" is? your average lemmy.world mod, an unpaid volunteer?

It's a threat to free speech.

I think just the people need to held accountable as while I am no fan of Meta, it is not their responsibility to hold people legally accountable to what they choose to post. What we really need is zero knowledge proof tech to identity a person is real without having to share their personal information but that breaks Meta’s and other free business model so here we are.

YouTube has been getting much worse lately as well. Lots of purported late-breaking Ukraine war news that's nothing but badly-written lies. Same with reports of Trump legal defeats that haven't actually happened. They are flooding the zone with shit, and poisoning search results with slop.

Sites AND the people that post them. The age of consequence-less action needs to end.

They have vibe journalists now

Pr because it was between 0 and 2 in the night. Still, as an author I wouldn't have mentioned it.

They do, they have like a daily article debunking shit.

Did they though? They mentioned a journalist ran it through a chat bot. They also mention it was verified by a reporter on the ground.

It’s like criticising a weather report because the reporter looked outside to see if it was raining, when they also consulted the simulation forecasting.

Because the venn diagram of “people who would maliciously do something like this” and “people with good enough photoshop skills to make it look realistic” were nearly two separate circles. AI has added a third “people with access to AI image generators” circle, and it has a LOT of overlap with the second group simply because it is so large.

It doesn’t require skill anymore. AI has enabled children with the ability to pretend they have a skill, and to use it to fool people for fun.

The thing is you actually need some skill to do it in Photoshop, but now every dumb fuck who knows how to read can do shit like this.

It took skill to do this before. Hardly anyone with that level of skill and time would do this. Now the dumb idiots have access to that skillset because of AI doing all the work for them.

These are more realistic and far far easier to make.

I mean, it's the time to get an inspector off of bed, on the road, to the site, and for them to go “yup, bridge's still there” and call back...