It's noble how many of you are willing to get philosophical about the rise of deep fakes freeing us from puritan beliefs and readdressing the concept of truth.

While completely fucking ignoring the harassment and extortion of deep fakes. Y'all want to get high minded about YOUR right to free speach using OTHER peoples bodies as a gateway to some utopia, while playing dumb that this is just another form of mysgonstic abuse. If it truly is just you something you are doing in the privacy of your own home, why the fuck do you need other people's media?

Your ideals are built upon YET AGAIN women taking one for the team. The "truth" is immposible to know so YOLO, let's turn any women who made the mistake of being photographed in to porn. Her consent doesn't matter between the privacy of me and my dataset, even if I do upload it and blackmail her a lil'.

A reminder for anyone reading this that you are in a universe that behaves at cosmic scales like it is continuous with singularities and whatnot, and behaves even at small scales like it is continuous, but as soon as it is interacted with switches to behaving like it is discrete.

If the persistent information about those interactions is erased, it goes back to behaving continuous.

If our universe really was continuous even at the smallest scales, it couldn't be a simulated one if free will exists, as it would take an infinite amount of information to track how you would interact with it and change it.

But by switching to discrete units when interacted with, it means state changes are finite, even if they seem unthinkably complex and detailed to us.

We use a very similar paradigm in massive open worlds like No Man's Sky where an algorithm procedurally generates a universe with billions of planets that can each be visited, but then converts those to discrete voxels to track how you interact with and change things.

So you are currently reading an article about how the emerging tech being built is creating increasingly realistic digital copies of humans in virtual spaces, while thinking of yourself as being a human inside a universe that behaves in a way that would not be able to be simulated if interacted with but then spontaneously changes to a way that can be simulated when interacted with.

I really think people are going to need to prepare for serious adjustments to the ways in which they understand their place in the universe which are going to become increasingly hard to ignore as the next few years go by and tech trends like this continue.

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?

I for one vote everyone just be done with public internet media and stick to outside, known person to known person interaction, and info from reputable news sources that vet their sources and maintain a high standard of accuracy.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

“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.

We’re about to take on a topic that’s pretty delicate and honestly hits close to home—dealing with criticism in our spiritual journey,” I read off the teleprompter, simultaneously trying to visualize ranting about something to my partner during the complain-y version.

Historically, making AI avatars look natural and matching mouth movements to speech has been a very difficult challenge, says David Barber, a professor of machine learning at University College London who is not involved in Synthesia’s work.

And while anyone can join the platform, many features aren’t available until people go through an extensive vetting system similar to that used by the banking industry, which includes talking to the sales team, signing legal contracts, and submitting to security auditing, says Voica.

Claire Leibowicz, the head of the AI and media integrity at the nonprofit Partnership on AI, says she worries that growing awareness of this gap will make it easier to “plausibly deny and cast doubt on real material or media as evidence in many different contexts, not only in the news, [but] also in the courts, in the financial services industry, and in many of our institutions.” She tells me she’s heartened by the resources Synthesia has devoted to content moderation and consent but says that process is never flawless.

It really shines when presenting a story I wrote about how the field of robotics could be getting its own ChatGPT moment; the virtual AI assistant summarizes the long read into a decent short video, which my avatar narrates.

The original article contains 4,026 words, the summary contains 289 words. Saved 93%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

I thought for a second I was in boring dystopia

So AI is exactly what the Internet was for....

It looks like the screen is smeard in vasoline. To be fair, you have to be primed to notice or halucinate it. Did the AI decide the movements too, because that woman looks possesed, her eyes behave correctly but she moves her jaw wildly at the beginning of every sentence. she even twitches at one point.