[impomura]

I'm going to assume bad faith because the alternative would be to rude to you.

If you wanted to paint a photorealistic halle berry having sex with whomevere you'd need years if not decades of art training. Or shelling a minimum of 500$ to commission an artist. Now I can have 25 different jpgs of that mental image in less than a hour of "work". And no you don't even have to write that piece of software, it's already online for free.

If you don't see ho this is a new problem you should log off

[rightbyte]

How is it a problem worth solving? Any solution implies limiting what I use my own computer for.

Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares.

If people use fake pictures for libel that is already illegal.

[Arainach]

>Random photos without context will just lose their value as gossip evidence. Who cares.

You answered your own question. If generative AI means that no one trusts any evidence and calls everything fake, that's a huge societal problem. We've already seen a certain subset of the population claiming that since 2016 with disastrous results (how do you convince someone who dismisses all evidence out of hand?)

[creer]

This sub-thread confuses all kinds of issues.

About not blindly trusting photos, that ship has sailed. The tools exist. Have existed long before generative AI. Are accessible. Do not require very much "talent". That's done. You can't blindly trust photos. When you get a photo or a few photos - be it in a scientific paper or a tabloid web site - you can ask yourself whether it makes sense. You can consider the context. Generative AI does not change that.

[Arainach]

I strongly disagree. There is a huge difference between "photos can theoretically be faked, we need to consult an expert" and "everyone I know is using meme generators to post pictures of themselves in historical events, nothing is believable" in terms of societal trust.

[9dev]

I disagree with your disagreement. Pandora’s box has been opened a while ago. There is nothing we, as a society, can do to reverse that.

Either you waste time discussing how that’s a bad thing, or accept the premise that pictures aren’t inherently trustworthy ways to convey information anymore, period.

[creer]

Perhaps an example helps. And then I'll agree to disagree :-)

If you are, 6 months ago, before generative AI, an exec or HR person and you spot on the web, or are helpfully sent, 2 photos of your cherished spokesperson having a great time at a nazi campout. Then what? Well, you better think a few cycles before firing that spokesperson. It may well be real, it may well be Photoshop.

Generative AI does not change that issue. Eventually it will make it easier to generate that content, not yet. But you are still making a decision that matters on the basis of very manageable labor. More manageable than before does not change the importance of the decision you have to make. Many will make that decision without considering it but it's more a question of awareness or care than means, no?

[wruza]

If they log off, how will they know how is this a problem? Assuming someone’s going to answer this question.