Some of the deep fried Forwards From Grandma shit I’ve been seeing has leaned more and more heavily on AI generated crap. When you’re already used to the grainy highly-questionable photos posted in the Enquirer, a full length movie of Elon Musk half-melting his way through a speech seems relatively normal and convincing.
I think its all a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, the newer tech makes dismissing anything you don’t want to believe easier. Photo of Trump stumbling or looking goofy? Deepfake. Not real. They’re all out to get him and this is further proof.
On the other hand, a faked image paired with a weaselly headline can achieve a kind-of Truthiness that is easier to distribute than disprove. Case in point the fake Atlantic headline of Biden falling off his bike that got kicked around Twitter two years back.
Consider this particularly nefarious use of digital manipulation. Photos of University of Florida student protesters were altered to make them look older in an attempt to support the theory of paid protesters and outside agitation. Often, these images start under “parody” accounts and get screenshoted and recirculated and further deep fried as they pass from account to account.
So much like “seeing a photo of fairies doesn’t mean fairies are real”, seeing a clip of Trump meeting Jesus doesn’t mean it’s real either. People need to adapt to finding out how to look into a claim more than just saying “I saw a picture so it must be true.”
Shy of personally running down Elon and asking him, what are you doing to do to verify this?
I’d personally suggest “Don’t buy something just because there’s a video of someone endorsing it.”
Whether or not Elon endorsed it doesn’t change if it’s a good investment or not. (It’s crypto, it’s not)
Some of the deep fried Forwards From Grandma shit I’ve been seeing has leaned more and more heavily on AI generated crap. When you’re already used to the grainy highly-questionable photos posted in the Enquirer, a full length movie of Elon Musk half-melting his way through a speech seems relatively normal and convincing.
I think its all a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, the newer tech makes dismissing anything you don’t want to believe easier. Photo of Trump stumbling or looking goofy? Deepfake. Not real. They’re all out to get him and this is further proof.
On the other hand, a faked image paired with a weaselly headline can achieve a kind-of Truthiness that is easier to distribute than disprove. Case in point the fake Atlantic headline of Biden falling off his bike that got kicked around Twitter two years back.
Consider this particularly nefarious use of digital manipulation. Photos of University of Florida student protesters were altered to make them look older in an attempt to support the theory of paid protesters and outside agitation. Often, these images start under “parody” accounts and get screenshoted and recirculated and further deep fried as they pass from account to account.
So much like “seeing a photo of fairies doesn’t mean fairies are real”, seeing a clip of Trump meeting Jesus doesn’t mean it’s real either. People need to adapt to finding out how to look into a claim more than just saying “I saw a picture so it must be true.”
You’re working from a position of established skepticism. Trump can’t meet Jesus cause he’s 2000 years in the ground and also not a 6’2" Swede.
But a clip of Elon shilling crypto? That’s significantly easier to swallow.
Shy of personally running down Elon and asking him, what are you doing to do to verify this?
Read text? Watch videos? Listen to testimonial? All of that can be faked.
I’d personally suggest “Don’t buy something just because there’s a video of someone endorsing it.” Whether or not Elon endorsed it doesn’t change if it’s a good investment or not. (It’s crypto, it’s not)