Like throw out all the safeguards (which seems inevitable) and how does society best operate in a world where no media can be trusted as authentic? Or where "authentic" is cut from the same cloth as "fake"? Is anyone working on this?
"Critical theorists" are the people who fetishize "critical thinking" and all it got them was to embrace cultural Marxism.
Constructive thinking is far better than learning how to shit on people, as the skill of critique teaches us...
What do I believe? Why do I believe that? Why do I feel that evidence supports that belief, but not this one? For example, I can explain in a fair bit of detail why I believe that the Apollo landing was not faked. I wouldn't normally bother to explain those reasons, but all of them are based on beliefs and evidence that I've read about, and most of those beliefs are subject to reversal should counter-evidence surface.
In other words, when I read something and hear myself think, "oh yeah, that sounds right", there is another part of my mind that thinks, "maybe not".
Critical thinking is precisely what could have spared us from all of that 'cultural marxism' you mentioned, or at least, to do it in a way that is... constructive.
Technically, we could try and build a trusted computing-like system to ensure trust from the sensor all the way to a signed video file output, but keeping that perfectly secure is likely to be virtually impossible except in narrow situations, such as CCTV installations. I believe Apple may be attempting to do things like this with how Face ID is implemented on iPhone, but I suspect we'll always find ways to trick any such device.
Simple answer is I can just record a deep fake and get it cryptographically signed.
A blockchain could be a way to store and publish that signature & hash.
It can't say "this is real", it can only say "that signature belongs to source X".
yes but it would be a bad one. We have multiple key distribution mechanism that are better for the use case.
Adding Blockchain into the mix is superfluous, and destroys scalability.
The TV will have to match every short segment - perhaps 5 seconds of video - against a blockchain which scores the validity of that segment - and of course looking back to it's original source. Signing the whole video is necessary but not sufficient.
But yes, this is going to be resource-intensive.
Why not just allow a cert with that information to be delivered alongside the video? Where would the "score" come from?
Crowd-sourced is already "network of trust".
An AI based score would have to be produced by a centralized provider, so network of trust is the reality for that too.
The only way blockchains would provide benefit would be as a distributed discovery mechanism for "review" of the video chunk and having an open ecosystem for that (a dht or trackers) would work better.
Blockchains only ever had a reasonable use case under the assumptions of functional capitalism (and we don't have one of those). The reality is that they can't be sustainable without capture and the market incentives only increase the incentive to capture it.
DHTs and Networks of Trust only have the value of what service they provide and while that is less exciting for scamming people, they have survived and been high functioning for decades.