[mitthrowaway2]

So this is basically a regression to a 19th-century level in terms of being able to trust and understand reporting on the world beyond our own front door. People managed before photographic and video evidence was a thing; you could use eyewitness reports from trusted friends and news on the official telegraphs, to the extent that those were trustworthy. But it's certainly still a big step backward from the 20th century, that brief window of time where it was much easier to record physical evidence of an event than to fake it.

[afh1]

Photographic evidence has been subject to manipulation before computers were even a thing, more so after Photoshop became widely available. There has always been forensics for that, which will continue to evolve.

I think the issue with trust is rooted elsewhere - in social relations, politics, and not in AI generated content.

[mitthrowaway2]

It has, but it used to take a lot more skill to manipulate a photo than to take a photo, and convincing video manipulation was even harder. I'm also skeptical that forensics will be able to keep up, because of the basic principle of antagonistic training -- any technique forensics can use can be applied back into improving the pipeline that generates the image, defeating the forensic tool. That certainly wasn't the case in the 20th century.

[maxwell]

What remaining institutions still command any trust?

[educasean]

... Most of them?

Do you read the news at all? If you can't trust any of them, then why even bother?

[maxwell]

Such as?

[educasean]

I'm confused. Do you not trust any mainstream media? Where do you get your news? World and local? Eyewitness accounts only?