Videos and photos have been faked for a long time. Nothing has changed in that regard but decreasing the effort required somewhat.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/europ...
"There was a brief window where photography and videos became widespread so events could be documented and evidenced."
Photos are video have in themself not been evidence. You need trust the photographer or publisher too, since the camera was invented.
Moving the cost from big $$$ level to my neighbour level makes scams more personalized, sure.
However, the real breaking point in my view was when shills and semi-automated bots become so prevalent that they could fool people into believing some consensus had changed. Faking photos doesn't add much to that in my view.
Localised fires are common in nature, a massive wildfire is just a fire, at a different scale and degree. Lunatics raving about conspiracies were very common in public squares, in front of metro stations, anywhere there was a large-ish flow of people, now they are very common in social media, reaching millions in an instant, different scale and degree.
Just sheer scale and degree makes an issue a completely other issue, decreasing the effort required to fake a video to the point where a naïve/layperson cannot distinguish it from a real one is a massive difference. Before you needed to be technically proficient with a number of tools, put a lot of work, and get a somewhat satisfying result to fake something, now you just throw a magical incantation of words and it spits out a video you can deceive someone, it's a completely different issue.
Does anyone other than me notice this common tendency on HN:
1. Blockhain use case mentioned? Someone must say "blockchain doesn't solve any problems" no matter what, and always ignoring any actual substance of what's being done until pressed.
2. AI issue mentioned? Someone must say "nothing at all has changed, this problem has always existed" downplaying the vast leaps forward in scale, and quality of output, ignoring any details until pressed.
It's like when people feel the need to preface "there is nothing wrong with capitalism, but" before critiquing capitalism. You will not criticize the profit.
It's not really a shibboleth. What's the name for this type of thing, groupthink?
EDIT: while oversimplification is essentially always a problem, nuance and persuasion are usually at odds. So, it's especially noticeable in contexts where people are trying to persuade each other. The best parts of HN are not that, but rather where they try to inform each other.
At least made up citations are quick and easy to denounce.
What we don’t know is whether we’ll be worse or better off when the technology of forgery is available to random broke assholes as easily as it is to governments and companies. More slop seems bad, but if our immunity against bullshit improves, people might redevelop critical thinking skills and capitalism could end.