[avivo]

I appreciate the section on "Synthetic image detection":

"While new generator approaches enable new media synthesis capabilities, they may also present a new challenge for AI forensics algorithms for detection and attribution of synthetic media. In collaboration with digital forensic researchers participating in DARPA's SemaFor program, we curated a synthetic image dataset that allowed the researchers to test and validate the performance of their image detectors in advance of the public release. Please see here for more details on detection" https://github.com/NVlabs/stylegan3-detector

It's important to see this sort of thing happening more and more.

[captainmuon]

> It's important to see this sort of thing happening more and more.

Why? If we insist on the authenticity of images, this is holding on to the old status quo in the same way we apply book and record copyright to digital content. We don't allow what the tech enables to the fullest, but we restrict it by pressing it into the old mold (e.g. by using DRM to make music a commodity).

I think "photographic proof" is a historical accident of the 20st century (and it was never perfect, those with resources could always manipulate pictures to some extent).

As a thought experiment, it might be interesting to imagine what happens when you "open up the dams" and are able to synthesize any image you can imagine! In the beginning, this will cause a lot of trouble (say with harrasment and fake news), but I believe society will adapt quickly. I think right now there is a real problem with the internet remembering too much (pervasive surveillance on the one hand, and constant risk of moral outrages for stupid things you did in your past). It would be an antidote if nobody could believe in any picture anymore.

[xg15]

> but I believe society will adapt quickly

What gives you this impression? How exactly do you believe society would adapt?

[captainmuon]

Well, I mean we coped before we had cameras, right? In a sense, we would go back to that. We would have to rely more on witnesses we trust than on evidence.

One point of postmodernism is that often the facts (as in what happened when exactly) don't matter as much as the narrative (Unless you are a historian or a scientist). I think this is true to some extent, but we delude ourselves that only the facts matter. And then we can be manipulated by the narrative. It might be interesting to make the narrative explicit.

Imagine a politician that is exposed to a scandal with an old sex tape. This could ruin their carreer, no matter how good their work is otherwise. But if the tape becomes degraded to mere hearsay - maybe it happened, maybe it didn't - then it is about which image we want to believe. Then the sex tape is one narrative, the campaign is another narrative, and the only concrete thing we really have to judge them on is their actual policies, and their actual recent work. All the "image" will be drowned out in noise.

Same if you think about people posting stupid stuff on social media when they are young, and then having trouble when they try to find a job. If it is trivial and ubiquitous to fake drinking pictures and dumb old tweets, you can just shake it off with "oh yeah that is fake". The only thing that will count is your impression and your performance in the moment (and accounts from other trusted people).

I'm not saying this would be a good development, or a bad one, just that I think it is a possible interesting consequence of current tech developments...

[ImprobableTruth]

>and the only concrete thing we really have to judge them on is their actual policies, and their actual recent work. All the "image" will be drowned out in noise.

Completely disagree. What will instead matter is purely someone's image and their ability to fool people. Those who will benefit most from this aren't good people affected by smear campaigns, it's bad people who can easily avoid real criticism of actual wrong doings.

Most political scandals I know of are not something inconsequential, but rather due to corrupt or truly immoral behavior, like the recent corruption affair in Austria. Making politicians immune to this seems like a drastic step backwards.

>Well, I mean we coped before we had cameras, right?

Well, yeah, humanity also coped with frequent famines. I'm not sure if going to back to something like that would count as 'adapting' to crop failures.

[shmel]

From what I've seen online in the last 5 years, just a mere accusation is sometimes enough to ruin someone's life or career.

At the same time Trump and Johnson both showed that you can literally lie about something you said on live TV a week ago and people will suck it up.

[feanaro]

The same way it worked before it had the ability to take pictures.