[conor_f]

The thing I find most interesting about people saying AI generated content is easily noticeable, is that they're always presented a question of "Do you think this is AI generated content?". Nobody consumes media with a list of questions they ask themselves for each piece of content. I expect people in the comments to explain how obviously fake it is, but barring the ridiculous scene, I'd 100% believe that was legitimate if I saw it with no AI warning.

[insickness]

> I'd 100% believe that was legitimate if I saw it with no AI warning.

And if it weren't such an obviously fake situation. Imagine it were more subtle, like Cruise out on a date in a high-end bar, coming onto a woman and overstepping boundaries, taken with a concealed cell phone.

[Nevermark]

Your logic is impeccable, but tragically already obsolete

Pretty soon the default will be everything is AI generated, even the most honest straightforward media will be AI edited/mediated.

It will be too convenient, consistent, flexible and efficient to record and edit most things with AI, not to

Before we asked “was that recorded in analog or digital?” Then we stopped asking.

[tgv]

> Before we asked “was that recorded in analog or digital?” Then we stopped asking.

Very few people did, and the consequences of that are incomparable. But I'm afraid your idea of commodity/ease of use will make much of the media AI mediated (at least). And like analog/digital, nobody will notice the difference.

[arrrg]

What do you mean by saying that the consequences of not always asking whether something was recorded in analog or digital are incomparable?

Asking that question seems relatively irrelevant to me, especially now that pretty much everything is at some point converted to digital anyway, if only for ease of distribution.

In that sense filming on film, for example, is only an aesthetic choice and a choice about the tools you want to use on set, anyway. Which is not to say that it doesn’t matter or doesn’t make a difference. But in cinemas they will still project the digitized version of that film. And people will still distribute digitized scans of their “analogue” photos online.

I mean, even “digital” cameras record decidedly analogue voltages from photosites, the difference is mostly about at which point in the chain you put the analogue digital converter.

But what difference does it make?

[Nevermark]

Hard to remember, but the entire chain of recording, editing, distributing and broadcasting media was entirely via analog formats and analog handling.

When digital media first became an option, it was often not as high quality.

And since digital was easier to manipulate, it was often viewed as less trustworthy as it got better & better.

We stopped worrying about the manipulation of digital when its quality advantages became so great that digital was pervasive.

At that point, all media was digital and easily editable, so digital was no longer a red flag.

The truth of digital media was considered based on its sources, confirmation from second sources, etc.

Digital no longer meant less trustworthy because everything was digital.

—

We are going through those same stages with AI media.

Easy to do many things with AI now, but the results are often awkward or slightly odd.

As it gets better we have greater trouble trusting what AI produces.

But soon everything will be so easily editable, enhanceable, etc. via AI, so basically everything will be.

And the veracity of content will rest again, on sources, etc.

AI itself won’t be a red flag of manipulation anymore, because everything will involve AI.

[tgv]

In the sense that not knowing whether it's analog or digital doesn't alter the information. It's the source plus some noise; our eyes and ears perceive more or less the same, the interpretation is identical. But an AI-mediated video can invent or change the information in ways we we're not equipped to deal with. In that sense, you cannot compare analog-digital vs original-artificial.

[kqr]

For a year or so I've had the idea of setting up one of those "can you spot the AI generated content" tests except pitching good AI generated content against bad AI generated content, but keeping it absolutely secret that the good ones are AI generated. I suspect very close to 0 % of the test-takers would come out and say that "I'm confident all examples I saw were AI generated".

I think people would unconsciously shift their mental bar to the point where the bad stuff makes them believe the good stuff is real.

[agumonkey]

yeah, i've been fooled by context only even on non fake content. our brains are easily going along with the flow of images if it's normal enough.

that said this still has small lag and visual blur to feel uncanny