[antris]

> Yeah, we are very close to losing video as a source of truth.

I think this way of thinking is distracted. No type of media has ever been a source of truth in itself. Videos have been edited convincingly for a long time, and people can lie about their context or cut them in a way that flips their meaning.

Text is the easiest media to lie on, you can freely just make stuff up as you go, yet we don't say "we cannot trust written text anymore".

Well yeah duh, you can trust no type of media just because it is formatted in a certain way. We arrive at the truth by using multiple sources and judging the sources' track records of the past. AI is not going to change how sourcing works. It might be easier to fool people who have no media literacy, but those people have always been a problem for society.

[subtra3t]

Text was never looked at a source of truth like video was. If you messaged someone something, they wouldn't necessarily believe it. But if you sent them a video of that something, they would feel that they would have no choice but to believe that something.

> Well yeah duh, you can trust no type of media just because it is formatted in a certain way

Maybe you wouldn't, but the layperson probably would.

> We arrive at the truth by using multiple sources and judging the sources' track records of the past

Again, this is something that the ideal person would, not the average layperson. Almost nobody would go through all that to decide if they want to believe something or not. Presenting them a video of this sometjing would've been a surefire way to force them to believe it though, at least before Sora.

> people have always been a problem for society

Unrelated, but I think this attitude is by far the bigger "problem for society". It encourages us to look down on some people even when we do not know their circumstances or reasons, all for an extremely trivial matter. It encourages gatekeeping and hostility, and I think that kind of attitude is at least as detrimental to society as people with no media literacy.

[krab]

During a significant part of history, text was definitely considered a source of truth, at least to the extent a lot of people see video now. A fancy recommendation letter from a noble would get you far. It makes sense because if you forge it, that means you had to invest significant amount of effort and therefore you had to plan the deception. It's a different kind of behavior than just lying on a whim.

But even then, as nowadays, people didn't trust the medium absolutely. The possibility of forgery was real, as it has been with the video, even before generative AI.

[quartesixte]

To back up this claim, when fictional novels first became a literary format in the Western world, there was immense consternation about the fact that un-true things were being said in text. It actually took a while for authors to start writing in anything besides formats that mimicked non-fictional writing (letters, diary entries, etc.).

[xanderlewis]

> No type of media has ever been a source of truth in itself.

'pics or it didn't happen' has been a thing (possibly) until very recently for good reason.

[throwup238]

And they've been doctored almost as long as photography has been around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...

[xanderlewis]

As has been pointed ad nauseam by now, no one's suggesting that AI unlocks the ability to doctor images; they're suggesting that it makes it trivially easy for anyone, no matter how unskilled, to do so.

I really find this constant back and forth exhausting. It's always the same conversation: '(gen)AI makes it easy to create lots of fake news and disinformation etc.' --> 'but we've always been able to do that. have you not guys not heard of photoshop?' --> 'yes, but not on this scale this quickly. can you not see the difference?'

Anyway, my original point was simply to say that a lot of people have (rightly or wrongly) indeed taken photographic evidence seriously, even in the age of photographic manipulation (which as you point out, pretty much coincides with the age of photography itself).

[victor106]

> Videos have been edited convincingly for a long time,

You are right but the thing with this is the speed and ease with which you can generate something completely fake.