It is time to start holding social media sites liable for posting AI deceptions. FB is absolutely rife with them.
Disagree. Without Section 230 (or equivalent laws of their respective jurisdictions) your Fediverse instance would be forced to moderate even harder in fear of legal action. I mean, who even decides what “AI deception” is? your average lemmy.world mod, an unpaid volunteer?
It’s a threat to free speech.
Also, it would be trivial for big tech to flood every fediverse instance with deceptive content and get us all shut down
Just make the law so it only affects things with x-amount of millions of users or x-percent of the population number minimum. You could even have regulation tiers toed to amount of active users, so those over the billion mark are regulated the strictest, like Facebook.
That’ll leave smaller networks, forums, and businesses alone while finally giving some actually needed regulations to the large corporations messing with things.
How high is your proposed number?
Why is Big = Bad?
Proton have over 100 million users.
Do we fine Proton AG for a bunch of shitheads abusing their platform and sending malicious email? How do they detect it if its encrypted? Force them to backdoor the encryption?
Proton isn’t social media.
If you can’t understand why big = bad in terms of the dissemination of misinformation, then clearly we’re already at an impass on further discussion of possible numbers and usage of statistics and other variables in determining potential regulations.
Yeah, I work for your biggest social media comoetitor, why would I not just go post slop all over your platform with the intent of getting you fined?
I don’t think it’d be that simple.
Any given website URL could go viral at any moment. In the old days, that might look like a DDoS that brings down the site (aka the slashdot effect or hug of death), but these days many small sites are hosted on infrastructure that is protected against unexpectedly high traffic.
So if someone hosts deceptive content on their server and it can be viewed by billions, there would be a disconnect between a website’s reach and its accountability (to paraphrase Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben).
I agree it’s not that simple, but it’s just a proposed possible beginning to a solution. We could refine it further and then give the vet refined idea as a charter for a lawyer to them draft up as a proper proposal that could then be present to a relative governmental body to consider.
But few people like to put in that work. Even politicians don’t - that’s why corporations get so much of what they want - they do that and pay people to do that for them.
That said, view count isn’t the same as membership. This solution wouldn’t be perfect.
But it would be better than nothing at all, especially now with the advent of AI turning the firehouse of lies into the tsunami of lies. Currently one side only grows stronger in their opportunity for causing havoc and mischief while the other, quite literally, does nothing and sometimes advocates for doing nothing. You could say it’s a reflection of the tolerance paradox that we’re seeing today.
I think just the people need to held accountable as while I am no fan of Meta, it is not their responsibility to hold people legally accountable to what they choose to post. What we really need is zero knowledge proof tech to identity a person is real without having to share their personal information but that breaks Meta’s and other free business model so here we are.
Sites AND the people that post them. The age of consequence-less action needs to end.
Or more like, just the people that post them.
WTF? Why nothing like this ever happened during Photoshop times? Are people just dumber now?
Because the venn diagram of “people who would maliciously do something like this” and “people with good enough photoshop skills to make it look realistic” were nearly two separate circles. AI has added a third “people with access to AI image generators” circle, and it has a LOT of overlap with the second group simply because it is so large.
Really? I remember tons of nicely photoshoped pictures on Snopes. There was a lot of trolling by people with skills going on.
deleted by creator
Email chains? You’re thinking about some early internet 40 years ago. Twitter has 20 years, Instragram 15. People were sharing fake images on social media long before AI. I just can’t imagine anyone responsible making decisions like stopping trains based on a single image on the internet. You know how easy would it be to post an image of a forest fire on Twitter? You don’t even have to fake it, simply take an image from some other fire. You make decisions like that based on credible calls, not something you saw online.
deleted by creator
That was the first thing I’ve said. People are just dumber now.
It doesn’t require skill anymore. AI has enabled children with the ability to pretend they have a skill, and to use it to fool people for fun.
The thing is you actually need some skill to do it in Photoshop, but now every dumb fuck who knows how to read can do shit like this.
So? People with skill don’t troll? Clearly the dumb person here is the one who believed the fake. What does someone else’s skill has to do with it?
It took skill to do this before. Hardly anyone with that level of skill and time would do this. Now the dumb idiots have access to that skillset because of AI doing all the work for them.
These are more realistic and far far easier to make.
People who post this stuff without identifying it as fake should be held liable.
Wait until this shit starts an actual war.
For anyone outside the UK, the bridge in the picture is carrying the West Coast Mainline (WCML).
The UK basically has two major routes between Edinburgh and Glasgow (where most people live in Scotland) and London, the East Coast Mainline and the West Coast Mainline. They also connect several major cities and regions.
The person who posted this basically claimed that a bridge on one of the UK’s busiest intercity rail routes had started to collapse, which is not something you say lightly. It’s like saying all of New York’s airports had shut down because of three co-incidental sinkholes.
It feels like a privilege escalation exploit: at a certain point the authority chain jumped from a random picture provided who knows where/when to a link in the chain that should be reliable enough to blindly trust in this subject.
I dunno, someone just throws this up on social media, and you’re the person in the position to say hey, halt the trains, don’t you do just that out of an abundance of caution?
lives are worth more than the dysfunction caused by the delay in services.
the only thing this did was to weaken the resolution of leadership when a real disaster happens.
the next time information like this comes forward, be it real or fake, it will cause a delayed reaction which will ultimately cost lives.
Isn’t doing this the equivalent of shouting fire in a theatre?
yes.
A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.
This is terrifying. Does the BBC not have anyone on the team that understands why this does not, and will never work?
AI creating jobs by requiring more human intervention for validation of previously reliable forms of information?
Okay cool, I’m here for it.
A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.
What the actual fuck? You couldn’t spare someone to just go look at the fucking thing rather than asking ChatGPT to spin you a tale? What are we even doing here, BBC?
A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged
So they did. Why are we talking about ChatGPT then? You could just leave that part out. It’s useless. Obviously a fake photo has been manipulated. Why bother asking?
I tried the image of this real actual road collapse: https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/60-mennesker-isolert-etter-veiras/12875776
I told ChatGPT it was fake and asked it to explain why. It assured me I was a special boy asking valid questions and helpfully made up some claims.
Wait, you’re surprised it did what you asked of it?
There’s a massive difference between asking if something is fake, and telling it it is and asking why.
A person would make the same type of guesses and explanations if given the same task.
All this is showing is, you and ALOT of other people just don’t know enough about AI to be able to have a conversation about it.
It even says “suggests” in it, it’s making no claim that it’s real or fake. The lack of basic comprehension is the issue here.
I think if a person were asked to do the same they would actually look at the image and make genuine remarks, look at the points it has highlighted, the boxes are placed around random points and the references to those boxes are unrelated (ie. yellow talks about branches when there are no branches near the yellow box, red talks about bent guardrail when the red box on the guardrail is of an undamaged section)
It has just made up points that “sound correct”, anyone actually looking at this can tell there is no intelligence behind this
Yet that wasn’t the point they even made! Lmfao nice reaching there.
Those would be the same type of points a human would make to accomplish the task.
You seem to be ignoring the facts. It was told the image was fake, and told to explain why. Even a human that knows it’s real would still do what was presented to it.
The person told the ai a very specific thing to do, with not room for variance, it wasn’t even stated as a question, they made a demand and any human in the same position would act the same way. If you’re expecting to have to tell a human a 100 times that “yes the image is real, can you do the task presented” is more efficient and better then it being done?
Now you could also present the task as both being able to question it, the ai would follow instructions better.
Back to situation one, while with the human you would be constantly interrupted, is that a good employee or subject? Or one you would immediately replace as it can’t even follow basic instructions? Ai or human, you would point to do the task at hand, yes critical thinking is important, but not for this stupid task. Stop applying instructions and context that never existed in the first place. In a one for one example, the Ai would question too, if you can’t understand this, you shouldn’t be commenting on Ai.
Ai sucks, but don’t ignore reality to make your asinine point.
