this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
376 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3344 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 160 points 8 months ago (4 children)

"A primary concern for Petrucelli, Jenkins, and Antell, longtime documentary filmmakers and co-founders of the Archival Producers Alliance (APA), is to avoid a situation in which AI-generated images make their way into documentaries without proper disclosure, creating a false historical record."

They shouldn't be in a documentary period. A documentary is meant to be factual and historical so nothing fake should be injected into it.

[–] [email protected] 130 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Documentaries often include recreations of events, such as historical events that weren't filmed. It's usually noted as being a recreation or re-enactment. If AI-created images are used instead and are noted as being such, I don't really see the problem, assuming the images are curated to depict the scene accurately.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The problem in both cases is that people remember these artistic depiction as real, even if there's a disclosure.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Are we worrying about the fully functional adults that still need to be told not to drink Draino?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It wouldn’t be such a concern if they didn’t make up like 40% of the population.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We're all susceptible to this stuff, even when we're aware of it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

As someone who actually worked in the corporate propaganda industry... I concur.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you think you are impervious to this, then I got news for you.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think I'm pretty impervious to the impulse of drinking drain cleaner. 🤷

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ok but drinking draino is the cure for all life's problems. To each their own, though.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

That or seeing Batman.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Yeah television doesn’t affect anyone. That’s been a great success. Fox News anybody? Pizzagate?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

That argument extends to any realistic recreation of events. It's not wrong, I'm just not sure what could be done about it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago

This is how I'm leaning too. If done appropriately this should be no different than "this is a reenactment of events" seen in 90s and 00s true crime shows.

The big challenge is getting the content creators to respect that template and not bury the disclosure in the credits.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Just to play devil's advocate, does that mean any "artist rendering" shouldn't be in a documentary? Documentaries have had drawings, with a disclaimer that it is an artist rendering, for as long as I can remember. Or what about when they hire actors to do a "dramatization" of what happened, how is this different?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They are different because they are clearly not real images or video. The fact that we can generate images of whatever we want that are near if not impossible to discern as fake by the naked eye, means that they shouldn't be in there at all.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Again, how is this different from an artist rendering? There's been artists creating digital media for documentaries for a long long time.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

As a wrestling fan I know to never fuck with the APA!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 70 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Reading through these comments it seems that many lemmings have wildly optimistic ideals about ethics in the "true crime" genre of documentaries.

Even for sincere documentarians, presenting unvarnished history accurately and completely is an impossibility. For the bad-faith actors, you'd be amazed at how much is outright staged or otherwise faked. The only rule is that it be entertaining.

As far as "true crime", the question of "should we even make this" is pretty ethically fraught. True crime is cheap, popular, and stuffed to the brim with hacks and bad faith actors.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well thanks to you I've found my niche...documentaries about true crime documentaries

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Is this a real niche? Cuz I would watch some if you have recs

[–] [email protected] 46 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

A proof of concept documentary about how fabricated evidence could be used to promote a fringe theory or even convict would be way cool.

How Jennifer shot JFK

Dunno if this is that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Knew it all along; Jennifer was the second shooter!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Duuuuuuude... JFK. Jennifer Fucking Killed! It was in front of us the whole time! 😱

[–] [email protected] 43 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Yes there are re-enactments in documentaries but this was using actual photos of the subject. I def have a problem with that. It's exploitive at the very least and reminds of the AI shitshow to come. Disclosure should be on the damn picture itself, not in the credits.

Re-enactments have actors and no one confuses them for the actual subjects. If you dont have enough material, don't make a 'true crime documentary'.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

okay, so, yes, its not 'true', and the crime its about didn't actually 'happen', but everyone knows' true crime' is a genre defined by its aesthetics and 'grittiness' and being very cheap to produce, so we here at Netflix believe we're being true to the highest ideals and aesthetics of the genre.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

They might not be mistaken for the actual people in the case, but they certainly get beleived as 100% accurate reenactments.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 months ago

loginwall -- here's the full text https://pastebin.com/krVEdG5v

[–] [email protected] 23 points 8 months ago (3 children)

We call that historical fiction.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

We call that bullshit where I come from. Either it’s historical or it’s fiction. Fiction can be done in an historical setting, but is never historical itself.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not if it poses as a documentary.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

In the U.K. there’s a law (perhaps it’s an agreement between the broadcasters, no sure) to display a P in the corner of the screen when there’s product placements. So every time someone takes a phone out in a soap opera, the little P appears. Hilarious how ALL the characters in Hollyoaks chose Windows Mobile for a while.

Perhaps we ought to require the same for AI generated media.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

So like Inglorious Bastards?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Are the images clearly labeled, or are they trying to pass them off as reality? There's a clear difference.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s Netflix marketing with ai. If this happened in the past it would just be photoshopped. They’re using buzzwords to get you engaged

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You didn't read the article. These are images that appeared in the documentary and were not marked as generated. It was implied they were real photos.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

I didn’t no but I gathered that. What I meant was that in the past the images that would have appeared in the documentary would have simply been photoshopped - it’s the deception that the images were real that is the problem. This article, I assume is using the topic of ai to imply something new has happened when it hasn’t

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Is it just me, or is everyone here commenting on a half article, the other half being behind a paywall? 😬

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah I couldn’t read the whole article, so what I’d want to know is if the AI generated images were shown with a disclosure or not. Because that changes everything..

Edit: apparently there was no disclosure in the movie, which is the problem

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If there was a disclosure, that would be fine. Documentaries used actors, reenactments, illustrations, 3D generated content, etc. before. If it helps viewers visualize the topic, it is fine. If it skews the story to push a theory of the documentary, that's not fine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I think we can all agree on that... But without the entire article, one can only parametrise their answer... I was hoping someone with a full version could do an HTML dump. 😅

Or at the very least a markdown dump in here.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

You can find the complete article on archive.org

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

In my experience, most just read the headline. That's why the tldr bot is so important and most subs banning it are just doing the community a disservice.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 8 months ago
[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago

Fuck all these disgusting true crime documentaries regardless whether or not they use AI

load more comments
view more: next ›