Injured Gaza baby photo proven to be AI-generated | Hacker News Reader

Injured Gaza baby photo proven to be AI-generated

jpost.com

35 pointswebmaven23 comments

AI generated images of tragedies is such a stupid thing to do, especially when there are real and actual tragedies recorded. It destroys the credibility of your side. It's just such a short-sighted thing to do.

Or it could be psyops to discredit your enemy. Or unethical newspapers looking for clicks.

Because the real ones aren't as provocative as the simulated ones.

Many people won't see the correction. Many who do will dismiss it as false. Even those who accept that they were fooled will still have lingering doubts.

This particular propaganda war has been going on for decades. The credibility of both sides is poor. The credibility of Hamas is especially bad, which just means that their supporters are already primed to uncritically accept even clear falsehoods.

There's little downside to them for faking evidence. It just reinforces the status quo.

Basically saying: while we wait for some kids to die horribly, let's fake some horrible child deaths to show the world.

I think something changed in the past few years that boils down to “it’s ok to lie if it’s for the right cause.”

And it drives me crazy because it’s so short sighted. I’ve had this argument with friends and they adamantly don’t care because “the other side lies.”

The idea of taking the high ground and being right seems to have gone away to “win at any cost.” But I think that when you do dumb stuff like falsify data, it makes you untrustworthy forever.

This isn't a recent thing, people have been lying to gain an advantage since the beginning of people.

Deception is a common trait among many species.

A stronger form of propaganda would be for the other side of a conflict to generate and circulate a fake photo, then have fact checkers determine that it's fake. Then people would come to their own conclusions, "If this photo is fake, then maybe most of the violence against this group is also fake."

When you're actually being bombed, creating a fake photo of the devastation would do more harm than good, since you have plenty of authentic evidence to draw from.

I doubt that. Retractions or evidence a story was fake never get the distribution of the original. Or if they do it's years later and academic.

I bet this article will get far more imprints than yet another picture of a dead Palestinian baby. The Gaza strip has an median age of 18, and collateral damage is non-discriminate by nature, so it's not like it's plausible to imagine that babies aren't dying in large numbers.

If Israel creates an AI photo of destruction in Gaza, and then debunks it, that in itself won't have that much of an effect. However, if that photo is published by official Hamas outlets, and put on the front page of many mainstream media, only to later be proven as fake, that will (rightfully) lower the trust in Hamas and MSM. See the hospital story as a recent example.

Why don't you mention 700 real photos and videos of children killed in Gaza?

Are there any that are not reused Syrian Assad sarin attack from 10 years ago?

Here is a photographer now living in Gaza

Primary source

https://instagram.com/motaz_azaiza?igshid=NjIwNzIyMDk2Mg==

I'd argue that you two folks contribute to the problem.

Because the news is that one of them was AI generated. It is to highlight fake news and disinfo on social media.

The news is not that all of them are or that Palestinians are not suffering.

Be better.

You know how important it is to gain public support from the western community, right? Of course each side is gonna put out their propaganda.

There's still a huge asymmetry though. One side puts out fake pictures of baby, the other side takes out youtube ads in all the western capitals. One side clearly has more resources.

The self-attacks are out of control right now (no one thought that image was real, it looks like a digital painting at best). World War III might just be countries bombing themselves and propagandizing for the opponent.

Wasn't that how war worked in 1984, the book?

I haven’t read it since high school but I don’t recall the nature of the war being explicitly clarified. However the reader is certainly led to think that is a very strong possibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com