Skip to main content


#AI is going to kill us, but not in the typical scifi way: robots with laserguns or control over nuclear bombs

That's too flashy. It will be far more mundane

It's going to kill us via the firehose of falsehood

The tricky part:

The problem is not making people believe lies

The problem is making us so cynical, we disbelieve truth

In a world where nothing is trusted as true, and only bias remains, this will lead us down familiar societal paths of mob "truth" over real trusted evidence

1/x

#AI
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

Look at this picture

What do you see?

Context:

The picture blew up on social media because it depicts police outside the Louvre, which experienced a spectacular theft of Napoleonic jewels, which seems like a detail right out of Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes... and so... et voila... the frisson of this picture is remarkable

Is the picture real? Or is it #AI?

2/x

#AI
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

That guy with the umbrella looks guilty AF. That smug look on his face is saying 'Yeah, I stole em, but I just enjoy watching the police and investigations fail'
in reply to James Wells

@nikatjef This is the storytelling that our minds invent based on clichés. The man may be just disappointed that he was not allowed into the Louvre. Now he looks with little hope at the bus stop opposite, wondering if he will make it to the next tourist attraction before lunch. 😉 @benroyce
in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@NatureMC
No, the man is wearing five layers of clothing and a tie... Only Chump and kleptomaniacs do that while pretending to be a tourist. No, he stole the jewels.

@benroyce

in reply to James Wells

@nikatjef He's just a very typical Parisian dapper working as an assistant in a law firm.
You see what happened? Cultural bias between our interpretations ...

@benroyce

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

James is making jokes about it, he gets your point. it doesn't change the seriousness of the topic. but sometimes we laugh rather than cry
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

Indeed. I see that as a laughing, but not rolling on the floor laughing emoji... But what do I know, I just learned that what I called the chocolate ice cream emoji means something else.💩

@NatureMC

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

Now here is the problem

Because #AI fakes have trained you about "too good to be true" scenes, you immediately distrust the picture above

*That* is the problem

Where before a picture was a picture, now, for everyone, there is the bias of distrust. We, buried in cynicism now, distrust first, and discard evidence *on the bias of 'too good to be true'*

Here is another picture from the same scene by the same photographer (Thibault Camus, a photographer for The Associated Press):

3/x

#AI
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

that looks real..the second photo that is, not the first
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

No, that is a real picture. The content could be AI generated, but that is a real picture...
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

"someone else altered it"

"the lighting is too perfect"

"it's not #AI it's photoshop"

etc

maybe the picture is real?

🤷

To be honest, I don't care

The picture is a prop for my point here:

*It's not about whether or not the picture is real or fake, it's about how we distrust everything now*

Pointless insipid endless arguments about real v fake... what is that replacing?

On far more important issues in the world

And that can be manipulated

Meta-deception

Deception, about deception

4/x

#AI
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

There's many multiple layers here

A picture, concerning a heist with deception... if that picture's a deception. Based on a preconception about fictional masters of deception. And the implications of it all about how we are becoming victims of #AI deception. Or, more deeply- how our biases about being deceived by lies, deceives us from seeing the truth: boomeranging self-deception

🫨 🫨 🫨

😵‍💫 🥴 😵

5/5

#AI
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

We are all pictures of deception, based on perceptions of fiction, reflecting delusions about perception itself. Or, as my uncle says after two beers: 'AI is weird and I miss rotary phones.' 🌀📞 #AI #Deception #PleaseSendHelp
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

It'll be far more simple. Humans are extremely vulnerable to the power of suggestion. The AI will simply over time gain our trust and then convince us to kill ourselves.

We'll all willingly walk to death camps and check in.

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@Ben Royce 🏳️‍⚧️ 🇺🇦 🇸🇩 I've seen this picture in Instagram captioned with "This is the detective in charge of the Louvre heist". My partner showed it to me and I said "This doesn't look too unlikely for someone in Paris to be dressed like this but it is unlikely this would be the detective. After looking at the comment of the post, bingo, nothing to do with the police but the picture seems authentic.

Not everybody has someone who's lived a few years in Paris to debunk such a blatant piece of misinformation to gather likes on a commercial social platform though.

in reply to Hypolite Petovan

@hypolite

and, correct me if i'm wrong, but these are people leaving the museum, which was closed when this picture was taken?

so i would guess, as if i were a detective, that this is an employee

if you work in an art museum, dapper historical dress does not seem at all out of line with your profession

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

Wonderful in Lupin! Also he was really good in John Woo's remake of John Woo's The Killer.
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

*nod* There's a line between critical thinking and cynicism. One of the things that stuck with me from my time in film school was realizing that every photo, every scene composition is biased. What is the photographer/filmmaker choosing to focus on, and what are they choosing to ignore/hide? I think this is important to keep in mind when taking in any kind of media. But the underlying assumption is there is some truth to discover.

Deciding there is no truth leads to nihilism.

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

I wrote an essay a short while ago (comparing Darwin and Nietzsche), a short essay but it took me a decent amount of effort, reading the Descent of Man and the Genealogy of Morals from real, unabridged, paper books, and thinking hard about how to structure my argument. Submitted it.

I got a 1 star peer review with the single word of feedback: gpt.

I mean: just fuck that guy. But yeah: we now distrust what we see and read. Perhaps I used too many em-dashes?

in reply to Flipper 🐬🏳️‍🌈

@flipper

uggh

and now extrapolate:

everyone approaching everything from the point of view of "fake" if they don't like it

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

maybe there was a brief period with the Internet when the general public was exposed to raw sources of information. It is not meant to their eyes/ears. The analysis was always done by experts who worked at newspapers. - You do not believe because you saw a picture, you do because someone else did their homework with it.
in reply to Bence Varga

and now on social media, there are no such safeguards

but the most insidious part is not the fakes

it is this generalized "i don't trust anything"

even truth

and that will have consequences

already has

This entry was edited (1 month ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

Or is it photoshop? Or CGI? or "staged" ?

Without a photographer credit, it can be a number of "faked" sources. and even a staged photo, is not a true depiction of "the actual event."

These "re-enactment" crime shows have twisted everyone's expectation of (actual) Journalism.

in reply to run_atalanta 😷💯

@run_atalanta AP *always* shows photographer's credits and the photographer of this photo even talked about how he accidentally made it.

The dangerous step follows in social media when people share crude or weird stories using such photos. Then you can't check it, context lacks, also the source. You have to decide yourself. And in that moment happens what @benroyce is explaining so well.

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@NatureMC @run_atalanta this is most of why I wish all the tools would by default keep some provenance metadata with images that get re-shared, so in addition to the widget to bring up alt-text we’d have a widget to bring up sourcing
in reply to ShadSterling

yeah but that can be faked

and i remember arguments from the beginning of cell phones and social media how this was shared, and then this was used to stalk people. so everyone from cell phone manufacturers to social media companies and individuals began turning all of this off

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@NatureMC @run_atalanta the concern I remember was about GPS coordinates, not authorship. Sure, having a way to cite sources doesn’t guarantee anything about the sources, but having an accessible mechanism for that would be an improvement, and having it included by default would be a huge improvement. I think fake sources would be much less of a problem than paywalls on real sources, but having signatures on tiles within the image would be taking it too far
in reply to ShadSterling

@ShadSterling @NatureMC @run_atalanta

i don't understand though. i can go into the metadata of a picture of someone peeing on my mom's flowers, and have it say "picture taken by Shad Sterling." are you talking about some sort of cryptographic scheme? i don't think we have anything like that. the industry would have to come up with a standard, then people would have to buy into it. plenty will go "well i don't trust this. what if the cops use it against me? seems like surveillance"

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@NatureMC @run_atalanta I’m talking about making it possible to bring up the source of a picture like the one outside the Louvre and follow the link to the article in which the picture was published. My Mastodon app doesn’t have a way to bring up any metadata, does yours? Did the file you used have a link to the source in its metadata? The thing I wish for is the establishment of a standard for that and for apps to include and expose that info by default
in reply to ShadSterling

@ShadSterling Just a tip: if you follow @Bellingcat and watch their website, you can see how complicated it is even for specialized investigative journalists to check deepfakes.
The days when one method was enough are over. You need a whole range of tools plus crowdsourcing, including special software. And shortly after a security mechanism is invented, it can already be cracked. We are far beyond "one person" checks and one easy method.

@benroyce @run_atalanta

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@NatureMC @Bellingcat @run_atalanta at the risk of repeating myself, sure, having a way to cite sources doesn’t guarantee anything about the sources, but having an accessible mechanism for that would be an improvement, and having it included by default would be a huge improvement. If you think it’s better to never cite any sources, if what I imagine did exist, then you could remove source info from your posts, and make them like they’d be today
in reply to ShadSterling

@ShadSterling @NatureMC @Bellingcat @run_atalanta

well you have one channel, the image, which can be faked

then you have another channel, the source, which can be faked

so you're adding a layer, but... what does it add?

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@NatureMC @Bellingcat @run_atalanta I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince some random stranger on the internet that citing a source has value. If the necessity of it in academic journals and legal briefs and journalism doesn’t mean anything to you, I can’t imagine anything I say will mean more.
in reply to ShadSterling

of course citing sources means something to me

here is a picture of me at niagara falls, published by the associated press

because the associated press published it

here is a picture of me at the louvre with napoleonic jewels, published by the associated press

because the metadata says so

except the metadata is faked, the ap never published it

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@NatureMC @Bellingcat @run_atalanta you want me to repeat myself a third time? If you put a link to an AP News article that doesn’t exist, what happens when someone tries to follow that link?
in reply to ShadSterling

then you follow the link, and it goes 404, or to an unrelated picture, or to a local pizza place, or to a related picture, but you can see it is different, etc

and so you know it's fake

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to ShadSterling

@ShadSterling @NatureMC @Bellingcat @run_atalanta

i don't understand. by writing this comment you realize the faker's problem. they can't link to a source. therefore, they can't prove it's not fake

not being able to get a link for a fake post is exactly the whole point

in reply to ShadSterling

@ShadSterling I tried to explain the complexity of checking the faking not only photos but sources, labels, metadata etc. But your tone shows that you don't want answers, so the random stranger stops to answer you. Ben explained it well. @benroyce @Bellingcat @run_atalanta
in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

"but metadata"

🤦 🤦 🤦

shad probably has an "original" jackson pollock hanging on their wall, and the deed to "authentic" ownership of the brooklyn bridge framed next to it

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@NatureMC @Bellingcat @run_atalanta and here I thought you were a decent person, just failing to see the potential benefit of handling certain information better by default. But it seems I overestimated you.
in reply to ShadSterling

you're very busy proposing a concept that is full of shit, and are very offended when people calmly point out the problems with what you're saying

since politeness doesn't pay any dividends, i'm fine with going full send on the indecency

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@ShadSterling @NatureMC @run_atalanta I remember the days when simply by viewing the EXIF metadata on a social media post, you could sometimes precisely geolocate where a pic was taken. Potentially very dangerous if the pic was, for example, a family barbecue in the subject's own back garden.

Stalkers were exploiting this to track victims.

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@NatureMC @ShadSterling @run_atalanta Exactly. This is why objections to security and privacy typically come from a place of extreme privilege - from folks who, being so comfortable in life, simply can't imagine living in a world where the powers-that-be work against them.

Even within the Western nations, governments being able to track our every move is a lot scarier if you're not in the dominant social group, or are an activist working against the prevailing political climate.

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to The Sleight Doctor 🃏🍉

@ApostateEnglishman You nailed it. Plus: most people have a quite bad media literacy about personal rights and security.
When I see social media photos exposing single persons at nokings protests and some people debate: but she was on the street, so she's public! - No, she has to be asked if you may take a photo, and you have to ask, if you may publish it in X or Y.
That starts in normal cozy life. Example: in our museum you can take photos of everything

@benroyce @run_atalanta

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@NatureMC @ApostateEnglishman @run_atalanta

for the oct 18 no kings i took a bunch of photos of people and published them here

every single photo of mine was precluded with a question: "can i take your picture?" or not, if the people were far enough away

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@ApostateEnglishman but - personal rights - not of people (exception big masses, from behind, or allowed). When people are angry about that law I explain to them: Imagine someone takes a photo of you for Twitter, I can easily find out the place. And your wife learns from this photo that you met with your lover. Or let's have a war and you hide here. What happens if the enemy can learn about the front behind? If they target the bomb for the museum?
People

@benroyce @run_atalanta

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@ApostateEnglishman don't think about it. And they can't (don't want) to imagine how a single photo can bring someone to prison in a dictatorship.

@benroyce @run_atalanta

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@NatureMC @ApostateEnglishman @run_atalanta ok, but I can take a photo of a street scene, and automatically upload it to (e.g.) Google photos, where it can be accessed by (e.g.) the FBI, who can determine that one of the people in that photo is “of interest” and my innocent photo is suddenly the key identifying data that leads to their arrest and persecution.

I’m confused about what needs to happen here and how this works.

in reply to Gentleman Technologist

@NatureMC @ApostateEnglishman @run_atalanta I mean, obviously (e.g.) Google Photos is in the wrong, because they’re giving access to my photos to (e.g.) the FBI, but I took the photo. I am the copyright holder for this photo, it’s my property and therefore my responsibility.

How do we negotiate this? Our laws were made when taking a photo was a rare deliberate act. Now it’s like breathing. People take hundreds of photos daily

in reply to Gentleman Technologist

@GentlemanTech I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the laws of your country.
"It's like breathing" is no argument. You would never say: "So many people are breaking into the Louvre": even if many do it, the law exists. 😉

Personal right in Europe means: if you photograph a person who is recognisable or isolated from a homogeneous mass, you need the permission of this person to take photographs and publish them. It's called 'model release' (a lot of

@ApostateEnglishman @benroyce @run_atalanta

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@GentlemanTech info and templates in the internet). This personal right has nothing to do with copyright. If you have the model release, everything is ok for you (therefore, many make it by signature).
And the law exists for private persons posting on social media as well a for professional photographs.

If you don't want to endanger people in certain situations: blur or pixelate faces or use emojis, if you are interested in the sign that the person

@ApostateEnglishman @benroyce @run_atalanta

in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

i would register one exception:

if someone is committing a crime, or simply just harassing you or someone else, especially someone in an official capacity, you should photo or video them without any approval or authorization

which makes the whole masked ICE goons thing so vile

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@NatureMC @ApostateEnglishman @run_atalanta ok so is that an actual exemption? “The general mass of people “

Walk in any street in London and you’ll be captured by half a dozen CCTV cameras without signing any kind of model release or permission.

Stand near any tourist attraction anywhere for 20 seconds and you’ll be captured by 100 photos that are uploaded to Google/Apple photos without your permission or knowledge.

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

is the guy in the suit like the super skilled detective who's going to crack the case wide open? He's definitely dressed like the main character.

I assume it's a real photo and that dude isn't photoshopped into it because at least one of the guys dressed like a cop seems to be looking at him.

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

No, no, no. The words are;
"Look at this photograph, every time I do it makes me laugh"

🤣

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

"The problem is not making people believe lies

The problem is making us all so cynical, we disbelieve truth"

This is exactly why fascists lie about everything and I think an important insight to compare 'AI' and our fascist moment

reshared this

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

Let's not forget the climate crisis, fueled in part by LLMs. But yeah, the attack on objective reality is disheartening.
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Petra van Cronenburg

2/2 This is just a personal note on this one photo itself - I don't want to disturb your very informative thread! You show very well how it works.

And unfortunately, prejudices, expectations and clichés affect not only the photos themselves, but also the stories and fake news in social media. (BTW, I professionally distrust every content in social media, and check it or trust people - even before AI existed).

So thanks for the thread!

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Petra van Cronenburg

@NatureMC

the point is not whether it's real or fake

the point is we wind up arguing about it

instead of doing anything about a topic *someone doesn't want us doing anything about*

it's the trick of flooding the zone, the gish gallop, the firehose of falsehood, etc:

wear us down, disengage us. make us doubt everything. fill us with cynicism, unwilling and unable to act

in reply to Roknrol

@roknrol @NatureMC

exactly the point of such meta-deception

the point is not to lie to us

the point is to wear us down and we stop caring, and passively accept

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

This reminds me of the term "liar’s dividend":

cambridge.org/core/journals/am…

In short: It's when people claim that something is fake, although it's real, especially, when the false claim benefits them.

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

It's already killing people because insurance companies have AI deciding claims.
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Carolyn
@NatureMC Really interesting. That guy with the umbrella could easily looked as if comped into the shot. :)
in reply to Carolyn

@CStamp @NatureMC Assuming it's fake is much easier than accepting the harsh reality that people in Paris are just better dressed and better looking than the rest of us.
Unknown parent

Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

@NatureMC @nikatjef

you and James are working together, in cahoots!

you took my point about silly arguments, and then you faked a silly argument, drawing me in and making me believe it is real, all to demonstrate to me i can be a victim on my own point about deception about what can be trusted about what is real!

this is an outrage!

😵‍💫 😵‍💫 😵‍💫 😵‍💫 😵‍💫 😵‍💫

(/s)

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

We planned it that way. I mean, we didn't buy it sounds cooler to say we planned it, so I am gonna run with it.

@NatureMC

in reply to James Wells

@nikatjef @NatureMC

wait a second

are you deceiving me about my accusation of deception?

that's ok

because i am in fact right now deceiving you about me believing your deception about my accusation of deception, which is on the topic of meta-deception

it's a little deceptive

🤭

in reply to James Wells

@nikatjef Yes, it was a French-US conspiracy inspired by Miss Marple whom you can see on the second photo. 😎 🤭 😂

@benroyce

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

So AI is the perfect authoritarian tool in the way Hannah Arendt described it: when falsehood and lies are ubiquituous, there is no ground left to make a stand. People just don't believe anything anymore. And with this people, so Arendt, you can do what you want.

reshared this

in reply to RenkeSiems

And this is why the oligo-bros are pouring so much money into it. If they can get everyone to accept whatever "AI" tells them as "reality", then they can rewrite "reality" however they want. It's straight out of 1984.
in reply to Seán Fenian

Probably a good point to mention that I'm playing around right now with an LLM-based, uh ... interactive story mobile app, I guess. I wanted a first-hand look to see how good it is at adapting on the fly, handling curve balls I toss it, simulating plausibly-human reactions and interaction.

And the short answer is, scarily damn good. After playing with it a little I can easily understand why lonely, lost people out there who feel they have nobody to turn to are listening to what their "AI girlfriends" tell them.

reshared this

in reply to Seán Fenian

@zakalwe @RenkeSiems || In the 80? I ran a BBS for the kids (we are pretty much out in the boonies) I found a program "Assistant Sysop" the was written in Basic. After it had been up for about a month this young lady posted she was all pissed of cause I fooled her. . . Like the man said never underestimate the power of stupid. You also just told me why I'm glad I never learned to Code. 🤣 😂 🤣 😂
in reply to A_Minion

Nearly twenty-five years ago now I wrote a couple of catbots for an IRC channel. Limited language parsing, limited machine learning. There was only PLANNED to be one, but, well, stuff happened, and we discovered there were emergent behaviors if two of them were in channel. People have come into channel and interacted with them for a while and asked whether there was a person playing at being a cat.
in reply to Seán Fenian

@zakalwe @RenkeSiems Sorry, we have them living in a big old burn pile that my wife wouldn't let me burn cause of the foxen living there. They are a fox but with an amount of black or all black with a white/gray saddle. This is one that is still red with black.
This entry was edited (2 months ago)
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

> we disbelieve truth
To be precise, deny existence of objective truth at all. "Everybody are lying!" ™️ is the main pitch of Kremlin propaganda.
in reply to Magical Cat

@koteisaev
I've seen so many far right people say essentially this: "everyone is just going on faith, so it's okay for me to believe what I want"

It's like they're disowning objective reality, because it might get in the way of their self-contradicting fantasies.

reshared this

in reply to FediThing

@FediThing
May be this is a "mental self-defence" trick, like "whoa the thing I believe so hard is a piece of bullshit infinitely far from facts?! Then let it be worse for facts! There is no facts!!!111" then [screeching] and all these Netflix-level special effects.
And it was exploited by Surkov's "post-modernism vulgaris" & kremlin Goebelses 2.0
in reply to Grumble 🇺🇸 🇺🇦

@grumble209 @koteisaev
That's a really good way of putting it.

Perhaps the people most in touch with reality are those with the least amount of privilege 😞

This might explain a lot of problems in society.

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

Don't discount the possibility that somebody makes a Skynet. It doesn't have to be self aware, an LLM with a really fucked up system prompt would do the job and MechaHitler already has control of the Pentagon.
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

🔥🔥🔥

❝ The problem is not making people believe lies.
The problem is making us so cynical, we disbelieve truth ❞

this is how they believe they can hijack ALL OF HISTORY. life doesn’t work like that though.

knowledge is a social contract because language is a set of rules and agreements.

they need to break all social contracts to impose their new social order. that’s why what they are waging is war, not just social but on every aspect society, cultures, civilization and Life.

@benroyce

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

same method Putin use, flood all info channels with endless misinformation, fake opinions nonsense, spread confusion!
Sounds familiar to Americans who have been exposed to talk radio and fox faux news...
in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

I agree on almost all points. I have two comments though.

A) We have been too trusting of pictures for too long. Not trusting one and challenging it, is the natural state of things and the right thing to do.
B) Almost everyone makes this mistake. Status quo. Your extrapolation is correct based on status quo but in reality we will do the following:
1) Identify the problem - you just have
2) Create something new to fix the problem

We are going to go back to the 80’s style of having a trusted source. We just haven’t invented the mechanism yet.

Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

in the us i believe the legal standard is:

done in public, fair game for photography/ video

this doesn't stop cops from going after people filming them

or aggressive assholes going "you don't have my permission!"

of course if it is in private all consent must be given. if it isn't you are open to a lawsuit

but again, this is about us: i will always ask permission. it's considerate (unless i'm filming an aggressive asshole)

This entry was edited (2 months ago)
Unknown parent

mastodon - Link to source
Gentleman Technologist

@NatureMC @ApostateEnglishman @run_atalanta thanks for the info, but does anyone actually get prosecuted for this any more?

There are laws on the books saying it’s illegal to drive cattle over London bridge on a Sunday (or something like that). Is this in the same territory as that?

I can imagine the conversation if I’m caught in someone else’s selfie and want them to delete the picture because I didn’t give consent.

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

new headcanon: Idiocracy is a Terminator movie, but the machines were pacifists. They didn't need to kill the humans - instead they just LLM'd them into increasing levels of stupidity until the humans were no threat to their world domination.

The machines went off to some other part of the planet to do their thing in peace while the humans rotted in their piles of garbage and drank Brawndo.

in reply to Andrew Zonenberg

Sarah Connor fell in love with GPT-8a and never had a child. The resistance movement died before it ever started.
in reply to Andrew Zonenberg

@azonenberg
Doesn't GPT-8a come before GPT-7?. It's OpenAI so it could be any order, but I am pretty sure 8 comes before 7.

Just to be sure, I asked GPT-5 and it confirmed it for me.

@benroyce

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

A big part of the challenge is deciding WHO to trust as well as the object of trust. Human society requires trustworthy, authoritative figures. People whose word can reasonably be accepted. Today, celebrities and anybody with a couple thousand followers on social media gets treated as a trusted, authoritative source. As a result, people believe lies. It is too easy and the result is what we have today: a morass of BS.

People need to be persuaded to rely on information from sources who are experts with the deep reasoning, knowledge, experience and skills that true expertise requires.

I wish everyone could exercise enough critical thinking to make good choices on who to trust, but that is not true today and if it can change it will take a generation or more. We need a solution that can help today.

in reply to Ben Royce 🇺🇦 🇸🇩

That's an interesting theory. Before this happens, we're going to have to face other issues, though, like the current problem of increasing unemployment caused by tech companies laying people off en masse, and not enough new jobs being created (especially outside AI). This trend is likely going to continue over the next years, and it's largely fueled by too much focus on AI, with anything else being defunded.
in reply to Cassi

all those unemployed people don't just fade away

it's fuel for a blowback

This entry was edited (2 months ago)