Well maybe stop shoving the tech that does that down everyone's throats? Just a thought π€·ββοΈ
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
294 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
59421 readers
2852 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The best solution to any problem is to go back in time to before the problem was created, sure. That cat's so far out of the bag, and it's only going to multiply and evolve.
I mean, yeah that's true, but harm reduction is also a thing that exists. Usually it's mentioned in the context of drugs, but it could easily apply here.
Is that the same Microsoft company that has poured billions of dollars into that same thing they're warning us about?
Yes, this is the "we're the good ones" flex. And anytime they do this, there has to be a big bad boogeyman elsewhere to blame without evidence or consequence.
gun manufacturer warns that guns can kill people
He also revealed that about nine months ago his team conducted a deep dive into how these groups are using AI to influence elections.
"In just the last few months, the most effective technique that's been used by Russian actors has been posting a picture and putting a real news organization logo on that picture," he observed. "That gets millions of shares."
information as we know it is over, people have access to the most devilish of AI technology: Copy and Paste
wow this article is bad
I think the point was that it is easier and faster to generate that image you put the logo on than ever before, not that it was a comment on "logo inserting technology"
The only solution I can think of here is cryptographic signatures. That would prove:
- the device/software in question stamped the video
- the video was unaltered since it was stamped
Individuals can also stamp their own videos so people can decide whether to trust it. Then players like YouTube, PeerTube, etc could display the stamping information.
This is low hanging fruit and should happen. All devices should cryptographically sign the video and audio they record. It's not fool proof, a state actor could probably extract the keys and forge a signature, but it would be better than nothing.
Each device should have its own key. It's quite difficult to hack a phone, possibly disassembling it, extract the private key from hardware, reassemble the phone, and then forge a signature on fake video. Yeah, it could happen, but if it's a serious issue the court can inspect the phone the video allegedly came from and at least for normal people, they aren't going to be able to forge a signed video.
If we get serious about this devices could have security hardware that is difficult for even state-level actors to break.
As others have said, people will still believe what they want though. With or without fake videos and even with and without evidence.
That's true, but the more transparent and obvious the evidence against misinformation, the more people will disregard it. You'll always get the gullible minority that'll believe in whatever conspiracy, but democracy doesn't hinge on them, it hinges on the quiet majority.
That said, this should be done in a privacy respecting way. You should be able to choose not to have your videos signed, not to associate that signature with a given account, and to supply your own signing key. Device resets should reset the key as well. There should also be a mechanism to associate multiple devices as coming from the same source, while distinguishing between devices (so if one device is compromised, only those videos are suspect).
I think it could be done pretty unobtrusively, and it should start as a standard for journalism before going to the broader public.
I think one of the biggest issues is even if you come up with a way to verify what is and isn't AI generated, it might not actually matter. Already we've seen people just believing the most obviously fake posts, cause they're just that gullible. Like yes we should come up with a system to verify things, but I fear the genie is already out of the bottle.
Well, you can't fix stupid. Fortunately, there are enough not-stupid people that tooling can help fuel a misinformation correction campaign. The more transparent the edits are, the easier it is to fact check.
because most people dont really pay attention to the news. people that arent really paying attention are really easy to fool.
Didn't Microsoft literally make a deepfake detector just a few months ago?
Did anyone else think nuclear power trio when they saw the pic?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
As hundreds of millions of voters around the globe prepare to elect their leaders this year, there's no question that trolls will try to sway the outcomes using AI, according to Clint Watts, general manager of Microsoft's Threat Analysis Center.
Watts said his team spotted the first Russian social media account impersonating an American ten years ago.
Initially, Redmondβs threat hunters (using Excel, of course) tracked Russian trolls testing their fake videos and images on locals, then moving on to Ukraine, Syria and Libya.
Watts' team tracks government-linked threat groups from Russia, Iran, China, plus other nations around the world, he explained.
He also revealed that about nine months ago his team conducted a deep dive into how these groups are using AI to influence elections.
Videos set in public with a well-known speaker at a rally or an event attended by a large group of people are harder to fake.
The original article contains 624 words, the summary contains 151 words. Saved 76%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I like that they choose the least convincing fake pictures. Its not really helping their argument.
The article is about faked images, so it makes sense they'd make the thumbnail image appear fake at a glance.