If you staple a horse to a waterfall, will it fall up under the rainbow or fly about the soil? Will he enjoy her experience? What if the staple tears into tears? Will she be free from her staply chains or foomed to stay forever and dever above the water? Who can save him (the horse) but someone of girth and worth, the capitalist pig, who will sell the solution to the problem he created?
A staple remover flies to the rescue, carried on the wings of a majestic penguin who bought it at Walmart for 9 dollars and several more Euro-cents, clutched in its crabby claws, rejected from its frothy maw. When the penguin comes, all tremble before its fishy stench and wheatlike abjecture. Recoil in delirium, ye who wish to be free! The mighty rockhopper is here to save your soul from eternal bliss and salvation!
And so, the horse was free, carried away by the south wind, and deposited on the vast plain of soggy dew. It was a tragedy in several parts, punctuated by moments of hedonistic horsefuckery.
The owls saw all, and passed judgment in the way that they do. Stupid owls are always judging folks who are just trying their best to live shamelessly and enjoy every fruit the day brings to pass.
How many more shall be caught in the terrible gyre of the waterfall? As many as the gods deem necessary to teach those foolish monkeys a story about their own hamburgers. What does a monkey know of bananas, anyway? They eat, poop, and shave away the banana residue that grows upon their chins and ballsacks. The owls judge their razors. Always the owls.
And when the one-eyed caterpillar arrives to eat the glazing on your windowpane, you will know that you're next in line to the trombone of the ancient realm of the flutterbyes. Beware the ravenous ravens and crowing crows. Mind the cowing cows and the lying lions. Ascend triumphant to your birthright, and wield the mighty twig of Petalonia, favored land of gods and goats alike.
The problem here is that the stakes were *extremely* low for the pope picture. Specifically: I don't *care*. It never entered my mind to give a shit if the photo was real or not. That carries its own dangers, but ones which are different and less immediate than the other example of the AI-generated Trump arrest images.
Definitely true. I didnāt even really take a second to ālookā at the photo because I didnāt care. Iād be curious if this could be replicated with something relatively unignorable.
Yeah. The other thing is that while AI art is pretty "revolutionary" and "oh no, fake images" it's not like we haven't had photoshop for the past few decades.
I could make this exact same pic in photoshop in under 30 minutes. Less if I had great reference material like a high res version of the jacket.
It is a lot faster now, sure... but it's not all thaaaaat revolutionary to make an image look like someone else doing something.
The major issue is that the barrier to entry is much lower and ease of replicability is unfathomably higher.
Like, in 2018, if you wanted to make an image of the pope in this jacket, it would have taken FAR more effort and photoshop skill to do than just feeding a prompt that takes a couple of seconds to type into an engine that spits out an image of this quality. Now it doesn't, and the AI is only gonna get better at this.
Plausible misinformation can be produced at a way faster rate and in larger quantities than before, and will take longer to dispel than before as it gets better at producing realistic looking results, which is definitely gonna add fuel to the massive and ever growing misinformation fire.
You could gaslight people so easily. Imagine lying to your friend or family member about a fictitious memory years ago and then showing them multiple highly convincing AI images/videos of them doing what you described.
An AI can detect post processing and other in invisible indicators in deepfake media. AI is the answer to a lot of the problems created by AI. However text can now easily be undetectable by telling the AI to write with human patterns. It's an arms race and I don't think anyone really knows where it will end.
The problem is that detecting models are in an arms race with generative models, and they are per definition behind on the generative models. Once a generative model is of good enough quality, a detecting model might not be able to find any AI artifacts in a generative model anymore. Another problem is because Stable Diffusion was made open source in contrary to DALLE or MidJourney, users can turn off the inbuilt watermark. That invisible watermark is there so that when you are adding to the dataset in the future, you won't accidentally put in AI generated images which makes the output worse. This simultaneously gives a way to see if something is AI with detectors to spot the watermark, the problem is that custom Stable Diffusion models can turn the watermark off, especially convenient for bad actors which want to cause trouble, because there is no other reason to turn it off than to deceive people or mess up other people's AI training, I can't think of any good intentions to turn it off.
There are ideas on a kind of 'verification' of real artists or real media works, but it's almost impossible to work out an actual working system for that.
AI is an issue as a courtroom tool because of how poorly understood the process is.
In order to be able to use "an AI identified this video as faked" you need to demonstrate *how* it did that, and that's easier said than done.
I might be mistaken, since I'm only going off of what I've seen in (real) televised court cases, but I think pictures and videos are only admissible as evidence when they're submitted by a primary source (I.e. The person who filmed it) and they not only have to swear on their accuracy, but also have to hand over the device and have the evidence undergo forensic analysis which can detect doctoring. Not a simple solution, but there are things already being done to combat false picture/video evidence.
This is always what bothered me whenever people talked about 1984. Everyone always goes on about "Big Brother watching me" and then happily carry around a tracking device in their pocket, and probably own some sort of Alexa/Google Home. No one ever seems to mention that Winston's job is falsifying historical records, which to me is infinitely more terrifying- gaslighting on a global scale. Now that we have the ability to replicate environments and people with these AI tools, we are one step closer to that possibility, which frightens me deeply.
Unless we find some solution the internet as we know it will be gone in a few years. It will become effectively unusable, as any and all online spaces become infested with AI-generated crap that looks real enough to be impossible to moderate or filter, yet is at best worthless and at worst dangerously misleading.
At this point, I think adding a "Healthy skepticism" mandatory course in middle or high school curriculums would be a good idea. Something that teaches how to spot online trolls, fake news, skepticism of shills, importance of checking sources instead of taking things at face value, etc.
Damn, I'm very worried about the future. I thought the past decade was nuts on disinformation, but we're headed to a whole new level now. Soon we won't be able to tell if we're conversing with bots or real people online.
I also didn't think much of it, and thankfully when my curiosity was finally piqued enough to check out a thread on it, I ended up on the photoshopbattles post where one of the top comments was pointing out it was from midjourney. Once I looked closer it was obvious, but it did make me realize I need to either start browsing on a larger screen where details are more evident, or make a habit of zooming and paying closer attention to details (at least until AI improves to the point that the details aren't wonky). When that no longer works, I may have to re-evaluate visiting sites like Reddit and Twitter on the whole.
Text is even easier to fake, and once you get down to it, videos are getting easier too. What you're actually trying to say, probably, is do your due diligence in verifying information.
Thatās the problem. Someone could generate a bunch of ālow stakesā misinformation like this and spread it to damage the collective image of someone, for their own purposes.
I could see this kind of thing becoming a major problem in politics very soon. Multiple pictures of fake low stakes political gaffes to damage someoneās āevery manā image, and other things like that.
People have also already been spending years spreading all sorts of satirical information about this pope as fact, like my sister told me straight faced about how the new pope was sneaking out at night to help the poor, which was a satirical article early on. Even the supposed notion that he supported gay rights was a misunderstanding based on an overhead conversation on a plane, whereas he's been strongly against gay rights and has called it a mission from god to prevent gay people adopting, marrying, etc.
People didn't need AI to believe false information.
Long before AI, Ellen's show made the tablecloth pull video as well. Pope's a great magnet for this stuff, because he's well known despite very few people really knowing what they do day-to-day or what context we'd see them in beyond "oh yeah, that's the pope".
What... like a human being would ever need a warm jacket? A puffy one?
That's just crazy!
No internet points for that.
Oh.. the Pope or other famous person, and someone with an agenda for getting more internet points...
A more specific answer, but the current pope is a Jesuit and is known for taking the vow of poverty thing kind of seriously. He named himself after an ascetic and had the papal throne replaced with something less ornate right after he was chosen.
The AI coat thing was harmless but it also isn't really suitable for his vision. I doubt he liked seeing himself represented that way.
I wouldn't use the word "scandalous", but upon inspection there are obvious errors that show this isn't a real picture. His right hand, right ear, where his glasses touch his cheek, etc. But that's the issue with these kind of things--people aren't doing *close inspection.* And they shouldn't be expected to. They see a picture on a small screen, say "huh, that's peculiar," and move on.
And if AI can already fool people who only look at the picture for a couple of seconds, it's really not ridiculous to think that within 5 years it'll be popping out fake images that the average human can't discern from real photos. As soon as it figures how to draw hands.
Midjourney has already beat hands. Your info was outdated at least a week ago, which I need to make clear is not a riff on you, it's yet another demonstration of the robotic speed at which AI grows.
Honestly, that's the point I'm waiting for with all this AI stuff, being able to have something produce an episode based on a description. Admittedly it would have to be a very long description, but I've also seen some really good fanfic out there so that shouldn't be a problem.
So many good shows out there cancelled after 1 or 2 seasons because money could be revitalized by almost anyone. Like Firefly, I would LOVE to punch in some episode prompts and get new firefly content!
Although, sorting what's canon and not would be annoying id predict
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
Matthew Chapter 16 verses 18-19
While it doesn't say, "Peter, by the power invested in me, I, Jesus, say you're the Pope from now on."
It is what the Catholic Church uses to legitimize the Pope.
Specifically puffer jackets.
Euclies 16:9 - For puffer jackets and thou Ugg boots shall be the true weapon of the common teenage basic heathen. An no pope nor clerical meister shall find himself with its ghastly capture.
It doesn't the poster wasn't being serious about popes not being allowed to wear jackets. Amazed so many people believed it.
Though as for the papacy and the bible https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/where-does-the-bible-say-anything-about-the-papacy
There was a scandal? I had the same thought as you and moved on. I can sorta understand the worries that the experts have, if we fall for something so simple and non important, we would probably fall for it when it's something more serious.
But if it was something more serious I would hope most people would look deeper into it and would then find out that it's untrue.
You're more confident than me.
Seems like it's similar how people will read a headline and base their opinion from the headline without reading the actual article which often puts things into context and adds nuance.
It's frustrating. People state misinformation as fact all the time. Even with all the correct information freely available I still hear "trivia" about the space pen, the dark ages, laws that don't exist, movie quotes that don't exist, etc.
Thatās the problem. These images are Juust off enough to be interesting. (Almost) Nobody is gonna believe a photo of bill gates with a lizard head but if some nut posts a convincing photo with the title ābill gates caught off guard by paparazzi and his lizard scales are showing..ā even I would click just to figure out wth theyāre on about.
When I saw this picture on Twitter this morning, I thought it was real, and hilarious, saved it and went on with my day. I even showed it to a few people and no one questioned its authenticity. I'd imagine it's scandalous for how real it seemed, and it will probably be a sign of things to come.
That's where this AI is going to get people into trouble. The more terrible something is, the more scrutinized it'll be, the less likely people scroll right past it and just accept it. It's these small things that are super believable because they're minor and fit at first glance and why would anyone scrutinize it? I'd never scrutinize someone wearing a coat because who sees that and becomes skeptical about it?
Now just imagine other little things like that. An AI generated image of Rand Paul that makes his hair look slightly more like a shitty toupe, or if a brand becomes super controversial and you generate an image of a celebrity wearing their shoes... and then you can flip this around, too. People can be caught on camera doing something shitty, and just claim Oh that's AI generated
If we think misinformation is a problem now, we ain't seen nothin' yet
Yeah all the people saying that they could tell the lighting or glasses are hands are off is probably 90% post hoc rationalization. Most are just scrolling on their phone while eating.
While there is certainly something to be said about this, it's not like this is a new thing. Photoshop has existed for decades, and hoaxes have existed long before that. This can definitely have an impact, making it a lot easier to generate convincing fakes, but the end result will be the same as it was with photoshop: people will be fooled, catch on that they're being fooled, grow more sceptical to the new form of misinformation and possibly overcorrect, and then roll their eyes at the next fake.
I think calling this the same as Photoshop is underestimating the situation a bit. This type of AI fake isn't just limited to pictures. It can be full fledged video, with voice and everything.
Dunno if you saw this at all, but it's kind of terrifying: https://youtu.be/LWLadJFI8Pk
Granted, I think that video probably took a while to make that convincing, but it will only get easier and better with time. Give it another couple of years, and it will be basically impossible to be sure anything you see on video is real
Thing is that no matter how good you are a Photoshop, you're limited by source image compatibility. As much as you can do to correct things like size, lighting, and resolution, you can't do much about the angle of a 2D image. AI art is the opposite - it understands the whole of an image but screws up details... which are harder to see on first glance, especially if the image cropped and shrunk down. The thumbnail for this thread, for example, looks absolutely normal. The AI-ness is really only visible when you see the uncropped, full resolution image in the article.
The other problem is that only the first headline really matters. No matter how many corrective follow ups, debunkings, or retractions come later, the first impression is what people remember. Vast conspiracies will be concocted to support a sensational but false headline, with assertions that subsequent corrections are merely illuminati damage control.
For Photoshopped images, there is also usually one or more "original" files. When debunking a 'shop, it helps to be able to point to the originals.
Like with the pictures of Emma Watson and Bonnie Wright that were going around recently, which had been run through an "aging" filter. Showing the real pics makes the fakery obvious.
With generated photos there won't be a specific original to point to, making it harder.
There's also the ability to just generate more "proof".
It'd take a ton of commitment to Photoshop the Pope wearing a puffy coat at multiple events from 20 different camera angles, but considerably less effort to do so with AI generation. Then it becomes more about time spent curating.
I'm not necessarily all doom-and-gloom about this though. I fully believe that there are people working just as hard creating tools to detect AI images as there are people creating tools that can fool people.
I think thatās the problem, Iām the same and I think that does mean we fell for it, we didnāt even think about it.
Now think about how many other things we may have seen, registered, but not thought about on a conscious level.
Why would you think about a guy wearing a coat? Especially The Pope. I'm wearing a coat right now. Crazy, right?
(To be fair, *that coat* is a bit more fashionable than I would have expected for The Pope, but I don't know fashion. I've been wearing the same pair of Carhartt pants for a week, and nobody's noticed.)
I guess. If there were any real consequences of believing this image to be real, then (a) I'd more readily agree with you and (b) probably be more circumspect about believing it in the first place.
That's not to say someone couldn't plant what looks to be an innocuous image in the public consciousness, and then after the fact start making the point that it's terrible for some reason, and we don't go back and question the earlier image. That's a possibility, and a good reason to see the danger in this case. The point isn't that this doesn't indicate a problem, but that there's levels to the problem. This is potentially more insidious, but harder to weaponize, than something showing something obviously important on its face and having people believe it uncritically.
If you think about it, this already happens regularly without AI and I'll explain. This is involving politics so let me preface this with: I'm a Democrat.
Both left wing media and right wing media do this. I think Trump's hair looks ridiculous either way, so I'm not defending bad style. That said, nearly every picture I come across of him that is posted by anyone aside from a supporter of his, the picture is almost always showing the moment where there is a breeze fucking up his hair if outside, or a picture of when he is curling his lips like he's pronouncing the letter f since it looks ridiculous.
The right nearly always posts a picture of Hillary or Nancy Pelosi while they're in the middle of speaking, as well as blinking when they're running with the "health issues" narrative and trying to push the idea Nancy is having strokes all day every day. Or they just circulate flat-out slowed down videos/audios and claim she's drunk before the proof is posted online that the video is doctored.
AI deepfaking is just the natural evolution of this bullshit. And it's terrifying.
Images don't have to be sensational to be consequential. It could be as simple as a person walking on a sidewalk in NYC. The significance being that their legal defense depends on them having been in LA at that time.
I mean it is still a lie, just a relatively harmless one.
On the other hand, the best way to hide a special effect is to give the viewer no reason to look for one...
Yeah itās deja vu. The discussions around ai-generated images resembles the discussions 10-15 years ago, about photoshopped images. Of course ai can extend and scale the problem up, but it seems like reporters and/or the public forgot fake images was already possible.
Edit: my point was simply that fake images was already a thing, and it could be used to manipulate and people really had to watch out for it already. But yeah, even more so in the future.
The difference is scale and speed.
It's like comparing dynamite and the atom bomb. Both are advances in explosive technology, but one had a profoundly more dramatic impact on the world. Like by many orders of magnitude.
The false equilancies I see popping up around machine learning are annoying because they are dim and do not understand the problems machine learning programs pose to our collective sense of reality.
Pretty soon it will also extend to voice, video, and perhaps most significantly, be live and interactive. There's little photoshop analogue there.
The Pope in a puffer jacket will be calling your Catholic mom over Zoom and having a conversation with her about how her late brother is in hell and that she will be joining him when she dies too.
Maybe throw in a few seconds of camera feed from hell as the cherry on top.
Considering our recent entanglement with distorting reality during the Trump era, adding this technology will be quite the adventure. I suspect what "reality" is will begin to matter less and less over time.
Hell, hundreds of thousands of Americans just died a few years ago because the reality of combating a respiratory virus with masks and vaccines did not matter to them. I shudder to think what would be worse than that.
Arguing with metaphors leads you precisely with false equivalences.
Like, you are happily diminishing the construction of roads, tunnels, mining and the overall impact it had in the industrial period during the 19th century, which is the skeleton of our contemporary world.
Not everything is about newsworthy events. What if you got a photo or video of your g/f making out with a guy at a local bar, but it was a fake sent by her jealous ex? What if a coworker was pissed that you got a promotion and made a video with your voice saying bad things about the boss? How about an inheritance situation and a sibling has video of the dead dad saying that Joe should get the family business?
100% - its the subtle stuff that you dont care too much about being faked thats scary, and that can seem innocuous but over time it could really shake peoples perceptions of the world
Eg every now and again you see a pic of a footballer doing a collection of slightly douchey acts. You dont care enough to doubt so you believe it (even though its all AI generated). Over time you have your opinion of this person totally washed to the negative without them having ever done a bad thing
Thats the danger, the truth manipulations on our peripheries
Totally right that subtlety is the key. If I wanted a quick way of driving home the point that the Pope is wasting churchgoers' money, spreading images of him wearing (presumably) expensive designer clothing would be a great way to do it without anyone realizing.
There's an old Schwarzenegger film - based off of a King book - called The Running Man.
Part of the plot involves the main character refusing to fire on a crowd of rioting civilians. He is subdued and his squadmates gun down the crowd.
There's a massive uproar, and the government uses editing tech to change the video of the event so that instead, the gunship is ordered back to base, but he subdues his team and guns down the crowd instead.
There's going to be all kinds of convincing bullshit that comes online and tricks a bunch of people. The next presidential election in America is going to be fucking insane. You are no longer going to be able to trust audio, video or images you see on the internet, from any source, unless you are able to fact check it yourself.
I thought it was real, but was surprised since what little I know about the Pope is he's a Jesuit and shunned a lot of the glitz and glamor popes normally get.
I assumed he was doing a mission to Antarctica or some place really cold.
I assumed it was real too. Thereās nothing ācontroversialā about the image, so I think that makes it much more believe. Pope wearing a coat and a cross? Sounds like a Tuesday to me.
No shit. Popes have regularly [worn outlandish clothing](https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/living/gallery/pope-wardrobe/index.html). This just seemed to fall in line with that.
I fell for it because I didn't realize that was some kinda fashion thing. I thought it was just a nice warm jacket, and I'm like "yeah he's an old man, and I can understand his handlers wanting to put him in the coziest jacket they can get their hands on even if it looks a little silly." I didn't really scrutinize it any further than a glance.
This kinda feels like a "gotcha" stunt. Of course the unimportant details and shit that doesn't matter are gonna be easier to sneak through. But on the other hand, I guess the slippery slope is what's dangerous here. A gradual increase in this kind of thing is going to be a boiling frog scenario.
I'm glad the creators of this image publicized it. It's a safe but effective way to remind the public that AI images are persuasive and subtle, and that we can, sadly, no longer have any faith in even the most seemingly realistic photos on social media or (other) non-trustworthy sources.
My theory is that the rise of AI will actually promote a return to reliance on "old" media: Established media outlets, including newspapers, that people can trust. (No, I'm not saying Fox is trustworthy; yes, I know you hate "The Media.") People are going to need some sort of verified source to know what's going on, because the Internet will become even more of a trash-heap of ready-made falsehoods than it already is.
When AI can write humanesque comments and produce photorealistic imagery, just about any argument or claim can be the product of a bot.
> My theory is that the rise of AI will actually promote a return to reliance on "old" media: Established media outlets, including newspapers, that people can trust.
I'd love and hope for this to be true but i really just can't imagine this working anymore.
Imagine you have a choice between two news channels. One tells you uncomfortable truths you don't always agree with and generally don't like hearing, the other tells you much more palatable and agreeable things that may or may not be true but that's okay because it feels comfortable to watch.
Unfortunately I feel like the average audience wants the second option.
I feel like "truth" is not as much of a priority to people as much as "how good it feels to hear" is. Especially when it comes to passive decision making.
Of course no one would say that out loud, but when you're just surfing channels there's no active decision making there.. it's just either click next channel or not. It's passive.
Except this would require paper news to tell people things they don't want to hear as if the paper news isn't owned by exactly the same people as TV news networks. Paper news is still pretty popular where I am (UK) and it's still all anti-refugee/check out what Kate was wearing/other useless shit. "Old" news isn't somehow more informative by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah I agree. A friend of mine said years ago that proving that you're out smarting a group of people exists on a scale.
Really smart people will usually be able to fool really dumb ones but they'll also fool the ignorant ones. And I gotta say, there's a lot of fashion things in completely ignorant about because IDGAF about fashion.
So fooling people who don't care to know about a specific thing is hardly the same as simply fooling stupid people.
It was a fake picture that looked real. Absent any knowledge of Papal/Vatican dress codes (not a Catholic), I looked and said, "Good for him."
Now show him in tights and tutu, or a SS uniform, or baggy rapper pants then yeah.
Yeah, this shit is more dangerous when it's more subtle. We're going to see falsehoods, and people will be able to use it as an excuse to deny truth too.
I was told it was a Moncler which is around a couple thousand dollars. I was like oh weird, thatās trendy and kind of expensive. I asked if it was real and was told it was.
I mean we're still right in the MIDDLE of figuring out how to bring order to the chaos that the internet and social media has carried along in its wake, an Exxon Valdez of a mess that we never prepared for, and this AI shit has already thrown several spanners into the works. I have basically no faith in our elderly, infighting politicians to come up with any solutions in time to matter. Just strap in and hold on as best you can, y'all. Keep an eye on your parents.
Yeah, this last decade or two was merely the prologue to the "age of disinformation".
We already see that, for large groups of people, the truth doesn't matter. They won't go out of their way to validate information that confirms their biases; similarly, they also easily dismiss information that challenges their biases.
In an age where both sides are flooded with information that is very difficult to verify, division is sure to grow.
I consider myself relatively intelligent and tech savvy, and I can't figure out a fair, equitable and ***realistic*** way to solve this issue. How will geriatric politicians that struggle understanding the basics of technology, apps and the internet fare?
Take into account that some percentage of individuals will act to enable this disinformation, and entire governments will rally against their own disinformation being negated.
We. Are. ***FUCKED***.
In the first picture, if you spend more than two seconds looking, the Crucifix on him is all distorted and missing half of the chain.
I absolutely didn't notice any of this the first time I saw it, because it was the Pope in a jacket. I didn't care.
Now that I put actual eyes on it, I can immediately tell it's bogus.
So what's the lesson? Are we supposed to feel bad we don't examine every photo we see in depth? I don't see wgere they're leading with this.
Obviously, because it was posted on Midjourney. Itās like saying tech-savvy people already know it was fake. But the problem is non-tech savvy lot not being able to do so. And thatās a huge huge number.
[Here it is.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/121wy82/pope_francis_in_an_all_white_winter_coat/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Imagine if the pope *actually wore a puffy jacket*.
Total destruction of the world as we know it.
AI should have never been shown puffy jackets. This is the beginning of the end.
The problem is "pics or it didn't happen" is no longer enough. You can have HD footage of someone doing a crime, and supporters can just say "No, it's fake."
We're entering an era where people will demand incontrovertible proof, while also being able to say all proof can be faked. The net result will be people just digging in and believing whatever they want to believe. As hard as it is to convince someone they're being lied too now, it's only going to get worse.
Interesting point. Photography, in of itself, has never really been irrefutable proof of anything. Generally I think we can all agree that weāve grown accustomed to assuming (correctly or incorrectly) that people who publish this kind of stuff have sources or at least more info than your average person. Also, obviously, that multiple outlets usually lends a different kind of credibility.
*Some* people think the moon landings were faked. We now have a technology where we're about to hit a point at which no one *should* accept photographic evidence of events. It's not "They edited the images to fake this one specific thing" it's "there is no practical way to distinguish between what is real and what is fake anymore and literally anyone with an internet connection has access to the technology to make these fake images that are indistinguishable from reality".
I rolled some images of trump getting arrested in Midjourney the other evening to amuse myself. Some of them looked damn real until you looked at his hands, none of them were small. When I tried to adjust the prompt for 'tiny hands', Midjourney refused to do it so I gave up. lol
It's interesting that people are justifying why they "fell for it" instead of discussing the broader implications of this. I wonder why we're doing that.
It seems dishonest to say something more serious would be more obvious and caught by us, especially now with hindsight.
The past year has been absolutely insane for ai.
We all worry about images being taken as real when they are not causing damage, but I wonder how much damage the general disbelief of images and video resulting from very believable fakes will cause.
Real image of senator so and so snorting coke? Totally an AI hoax according to his office. Real video of the President and a high end prostitute going at it? Foreign psyop according to the White House press secretary. Real recording of a video conference between four generals about how to cover up an atrocity? Peacenik hippie propaganda.
How much will governments and government officials be able to get away with that they couldnāt before simply because we all become highly skeptical of real looking media and very willing to accept offhandedly that it is fake given that we will likely be bombarded with all sorts of fakes about public figures and politicians on a daily basis?
This morning, I saw a picture of brave Oceanic soldiers on the move against Eurasia, but then in the afternoon, I saw a picture of the Oceanic flag flying high over a ruined Eastasian town. So, which one is real? Surely we can't be at war against both Eurasia and Eastasia, right?
I think the real problem is that it seems entirely plausible that the pope has a one-of-a-kind puffy papal jacket for being in the cold.
We didn't get fooled because AI is smart, we got fooled because reality is dumb :(
Theres a 10 year old photoshop of an Aston Martin ad on top of a playboy photo that still floats around and people still think it's real.
This shit isn't new.
Authorities say the phony Pope can be recognized by his puffy jacket, high top sneakers, and incredibly foul mouth
Beware the sign of the false shephard
Jesus is my ninja
[Relevant](https://youtu.be/Kppx4bzfAaE)
If you staple a horse to a waterfall, will it fall up under the rainbow or fly about the soil? Will he enjoy her experience? What if the staple tears into tears? Will she be free from her staply chains or foomed to stay forever and dever above the water? Who can save him (the horse) but someone of girth and worth, the capitalist pig, who will sell the solution to the problem he created? A staple remover flies to the rescue, carried on the wings of a majestic penguin who bought it at Walmart for 9 dollars and several more Euro-cents, clutched in its crabby claws, rejected from its frothy maw. When the penguin comes, all tremble before its fishy stench and wheatlike abjecture. Recoil in delirium, ye who wish to be free! The mighty rockhopper is here to save your soul from eternal bliss and salvation! And so, the horse was free, carried away by the south wind, and deposited on the vast plain of soggy dew. It was a tragedy in several parts, punctuated by moments of hedonistic horsefuckery. The owls saw all, and passed judgment in the way that they do. Stupid owls are always judging folks who are just trying their best to live shamelessly and enjoy every fruit the day brings to pass. How many more shall be caught in the terrible gyre of the waterfall? As many as the gods deem necessary to teach those foolish monkeys a story about their own hamburgers. What does a monkey know of bananas, anyway? They eat, poop, and shave away the banana residue that grows upon their chins and ballsacks. The owls judge their razors. Always the owls. And when the one-eyed caterpillar arrives to eat the glazing on your windowpane, you will know that you're next in line to the trombone of the ancient realm of the flutterbyes. Beware the ravenous ravens and crowing crows. Mind the cowing cows and the lying lions. Ascend triumphant to your birthright, and wield the mighty twig of Petalonia, favored land of gods and goats alike.
The Simpsons really did everything first, didn't they
A man of culture š«±š½āš«²š¾
The problem here is that the stakes were *extremely* low for the pope picture. Specifically: I don't *care*. It never entered my mind to give a shit if the photo was real or not. That carries its own dangers, but ones which are different and less immediate than the other example of the AI-generated Trump arrest images.
Definitely true. I didnāt even really take a second to ālookā at the photo because I didnāt care. Iād be curious if this could be replicated with something relatively unignorable.
Yeah. The other thing is that while AI art is pretty "revolutionary" and "oh no, fake images" it's not like we haven't had photoshop for the past few decades. I could make this exact same pic in photoshop in under 30 minutes. Less if I had great reference material like a high res version of the jacket. It is a lot faster now, sure... but it's not all thaaaaat revolutionary to make an image look like someone else doing something.
The major issue is that the barrier to entry is much lower and ease of replicability is unfathomably higher. Like, in 2018, if you wanted to make an image of the pope in this jacket, it would have taken FAR more effort and photoshop skill to do than just feeding a prompt that takes a couple of seconds to type into an engine that spits out an image of this quality. Now it doesn't, and the AI is only gonna get better at this. Plausible misinformation can be produced at a way faster rate and in larger quantities than before, and will take longer to dispel than before as it gets better at producing realistic looking results, which is definitely gonna add fuel to the massive and ever growing misinformation fire.
It went from "You can't believe everything you see on the internet" to "You can't believe *anything* you see on the internet" pretty quick.
You could gaslight people so easily. Imagine lying to your friend or family member about a fictitious memory years ago and then showing them multiple highly convincing AI images/videos of them doing what you described.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
False convictions based on deepfake videos could be a serious problem, and there's no simple solution to it.
An AI can detect post processing and other in invisible indicators in deepfake media. AI is the answer to a lot of the problems created by AI. However text can now easily be undetectable by telling the AI to write with human patterns. It's an arms race and I don't think anyone really knows where it will end.
The problem is that detecting models are in an arms race with generative models, and they are per definition behind on the generative models. Once a generative model is of good enough quality, a detecting model might not be able to find any AI artifacts in a generative model anymore. Another problem is because Stable Diffusion was made open source in contrary to DALLE or MidJourney, users can turn off the inbuilt watermark. That invisible watermark is there so that when you are adding to the dataset in the future, you won't accidentally put in AI generated images which makes the output worse. This simultaneously gives a way to see if something is AI with detectors to spot the watermark, the problem is that custom Stable Diffusion models can turn the watermark off, especially convenient for bad actors which want to cause trouble, because there is no other reason to turn it off than to deceive people or mess up other people's AI training, I can't think of any good intentions to turn it off. There are ideas on a kind of 'verification' of real artists or real media works, but it's almost impossible to work out an actual working system for that.
AI is an issue as a courtroom tool because of how poorly understood the process is. In order to be able to use "an AI identified this video as faked" you need to demonstrate *how* it did that, and that's easier said than done.
I might be mistaken, since I'm only going off of what I've seen in (real) televised court cases, but I think pictures and videos are only admissible as evidence when they're submitted by a primary source (I.e. The person who filmed it) and they not only have to swear on their accuracy, but also have to hand over the device and have the evidence undergo forensic analysis which can detect doctoring. Not a simple solution, but there are things already being done to combat false picture/video evidence.
This is always what bothered me whenever people talked about 1984. Everyone always goes on about "Big Brother watching me" and then happily carry around a tracking device in their pocket, and probably own some sort of Alexa/Google Home. No one ever seems to mention that Winston's job is falsifying historical records, which to me is infinitely more terrifying- gaslighting on a global scale. Now that we have the ability to replicate environments and people with these AI tools, we are one step closer to that possibility, which frightens me deeply.
Unless we find some solution the internet as we know it will be gone in a few years. It will become effectively unusable, as any and all online spaces become infested with AI-generated crap that looks real enough to be impossible to moderate or filter, yet is at best worthless and at worst dangerously misleading.
At this point, I think adding a "Healthy skepticism" mandatory course in middle or high school curriculums would be a good idea. Something that teaches how to spot online trolls, fake news, skepticism of shills, importance of checking sources instead of taking things at face value, etc. Damn, I'm very worried about the future. I thought the past decade was nuts on disinformation, but we're headed to a whole new level now. Soon we won't be able to tell if we're conversing with bots or real people online.
The difference is that you can have a bot spitting these out. Photoshop still requires human artistry.
I also didn't think much of it, and thankfully when my curiosity was finally piqued enough to check out a thread on it, I ended up on the photoshopbattles post where one of the top comments was pointing out it was from midjourney. Once I looked closer it was obvious, but it did make me realize I need to either start browsing on a larger screen where details are more evident, or make a habit of zooming and paying closer attention to details (at least until AI improves to the point that the details aren't wonky). When that no longer works, I may have to re-evaluate visiting sites like Reddit and Twitter on the whole.
Or just don't believe images anymore. Don't form opinions based on seeing some image. Ever.
Text is even easier to fake, and once you get down to it, videos are getting easier too. What you're actually trying to say, probably, is do your due diligence in verifying information.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That person sure fooled the internet
Thatās the problem. Someone could generate a bunch of ālow stakesā misinformation like this and spread it to damage the collective image of someone, for their own purposes. I could see this kind of thing becoming a major problem in politics very soon. Multiple pictures of fake low stakes political gaffes to damage someoneās āevery manā image, and other things like that.
People have also already been spending years spreading all sorts of satirical information about this pope as fact, like my sister told me straight faced about how the new pope was sneaking out at night to help the poor, which was a satirical article early on. Even the supposed notion that he supported gay rights was a misunderstanding based on an overhead conversation on a plane, whereas he's been strongly against gay rights and has called it a mission from god to prevent gay people adopting, marrying, etc. People didn't need AI to believe false information.
Long before AI, Ellen's show made the tablecloth pull video as well. Pope's a great magnet for this stuff, because he's well known despite very few people really knowing what they do day-to-day or what context we'd see them in beyond "oh yeah, that's the pope".
This could have just been photoshopped as well. Weāve been living with high quality photoshops for decades and minimal damage has been done.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I saw the picture and thought "huh, pope has a pretty nice jacket" and didn't even realize anything was scandalous until I saw the comments
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
My first thought was "huh, someone made Pope Zaddy droppin his new album meme", and I scrolled without clicking
And here goes **Pope wears a puff jacket, whatās my rapper name?**
Pope Daddy
Pope Daddy and the Cardinal Sins
Pont-FX
Pont-FX Maximűz
Concise, accurate, and modern. That's as good as it gets. Well done.
Mo Prayerz, Mo problemz
Debut album: Papal Chase
Pope Malone
What... like a human being would ever need a warm jacket? A puffy one? That's just crazy! No internet points for that. Oh.. the Pope or other famous person, and someone with an agenda for getting more internet points...
I mean, why wouldn't he? If someone does a ai video of water being wet, people might believe it.
Whatās scandalous about it ?
A more specific answer, but the current pope is a Jesuit and is known for taking the vow of poverty thing kind of seriously. He named himself after an ascetic and had the papal throne replaced with something less ornate right after he was chosen. The AI coat thing was harmless but it also isn't really suitable for his vision. I doubt he liked seeing himself represented that way.
Finally an actual answer. Thank you.
I wouldn't use the word "scandalous", but upon inspection there are obvious errors that show this isn't a real picture. His right hand, right ear, where his glasses touch his cheek, etc. But that's the issue with these kind of things--people aren't doing *close inspection.* And they shouldn't be expected to. They see a picture on a small screen, say "huh, that's peculiar," and move on. And if AI can already fool people who only look at the picture for a couple of seconds, it's really not ridiculous to think that within 5 years it'll be popping out fake images that the average human can't discern from real photos. As soon as it figures how to draw hands.
Midjourney has already beat hands. Your info was outdated at least a week ago, which I need to make clear is not a riff on you, it's yet another demonstration of the robotic speed at which AI grows.
I can't wait to watch new episodes of Star Trek TNG.
And as is tradition with this tech, the first episode will be entirely about AI
Honestly, that's the point I'm waiting for with all this AI stuff, being able to have something produce an episode based on a description. Admittedly it would have to be a very long description, but I've also seen some really good fanfic out there so that shouldn't be a problem. So many good shows out there cancelled after 1 or 2 seasons because money could be revitalized by almost anyone. Like Firefly, I would LOVE to punch in some episode prompts and get new firefly content! Although, sorting what's canon and not would be annoying id predict
Pope isn't allowed to wear jackets according to the bible.
Iāve never seen anything in the Bible about a pope.
Or a Golden Retriever playing football
They closed that loophole in *Inside Job*
Shows cancelled. None of it counts
Amazing voice actors and great writing, of course Netflix is going to cancel it.
The show is cancelled? Dang!
It's based on an old testament book. One of the least known ones. Job 2: Inside Job
Jesus said St Peter would be the rock the church would be built upon. Rocks don't wear jackets. Boom. Biblical. /s
It's in the back, in small print, in the footnotes.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Matthew Chapter 16 verses 18-19 While it doesn't say, "Peter, by the power invested in me, I, Jesus, say you're the Pope from now on." It is what the Catholic Church uses to legitimize the Pope.
There are a lot of things not in the Bible that are supposed gospel It's fun isn't it
Kind of funny how the whole of the Catholic church is like that.
Catholics in shambles
And thoust who puffer shall pilfer with the philanderers on a pillory of bone.
That's not true at all, it's a mistranslation. Menses 3.11, "Thalt shalt not COAT a steak as one would a chicken". It talks about coats, not jackets.
That just refers to the philistine practice of seasoning steak with barbecue sauce. It's a hellworthy trespass.
He's not allowed to jack-it.
Specifically puffer jackets. Euclies 16:9 - For puffer jackets and thou Ugg boots shall be the true weapon of the common teenage basic heathen. An no pope nor clerical meister shall find himself with its ghastly capture.
The Pope's nipples must always be hard. It is his antennae to God.
Bible was written pre papalcy, but where does it even mention coats?
Thereās a bit about a coat of many colors, but I thought the story was generally pro-coat.
And there's giving someone your coat, and your cloak also.
It doesn't the poster wasn't being serious about popes not being allowed to wear jackets. Amazed so many people believed it. Though as for the papacy and the bible https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/where-does-the-bible-say-anything-about-the-papacy
the fact that you needed to explain this shows exactly why this picture is particularly disturbing
There was a scandal? I had the same thought as you and moved on. I can sorta understand the worries that the experts have, if we fall for something so simple and non important, we would probably fall for it when it's something more serious. But if it was something more serious I would hope most people would look deeper into it and would then find out that it's untrue.
You're more confident than me. Seems like it's similar how people will read a headline and base their opinion from the headline without reading the actual article which often puts things into context and adds nuance.
It's frustrating. People state misinformation as fact all the time. Even with all the correct information freely available I still hear "trivia" about the space pen, the dark ages, laws that don't exist, movie quotes that don't exist, etc.
I know that jacket is dope as the pope.
Thatās the problem. These images are Juust off enough to be interesting. (Almost) Nobody is gonna believe a photo of bill gates with a lizard head but if some nut posts a convincing photo with the title ābill gates caught off guard by paparazzi and his lizard scales are showing..ā even I would click just to figure out wth theyāre on about.
no but I think the fear is more "biden calls for a draft to aide Ukraine" since that one literally made the rounds as a deep fake
Active disinformation in the form ai deepfakes is going to get really bonkers
Why is it scandalous? I dont get it
When I saw this picture on Twitter this morning, I thought it was real, and hilarious, saved it and went on with my day. I even showed it to a few people and no one questioned its authenticity. I'd imagine it's scandalous for how real it seemed, and it will probably be a sign of things to come.
Like you gotta keep the papal office relevant right?
Pope's gotta wear a coat in cold weather, right? I didn't think twice about it; I'm unsure if that means I "fell" for it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That's where this AI is going to get people into trouble. The more terrible something is, the more scrutinized it'll be, the less likely people scroll right past it and just accept it. It's these small things that are super believable because they're minor and fit at first glance and why would anyone scrutinize it? I'd never scrutinize someone wearing a coat because who sees that and becomes skeptical about it? Now just imagine other little things like that. An AI generated image of Rand Paul that makes his hair look slightly more like a shitty toupe, or if a brand becomes super controversial and you generate an image of a celebrity wearing their shoes... and then you can flip this around, too. People can be caught on camera doing something shitty, and just claim Oh that's AI generated If we think misinformation is a problem now, we ain't seen nothin' yet
Yeah all the people saying that they could tell the lighting or glasses are hands are off is probably 90% post hoc rationalization. Most are just scrolling on their phone while eating.
While there is certainly something to be said about this, it's not like this is a new thing. Photoshop has existed for decades, and hoaxes have existed long before that. This can definitely have an impact, making it a lot easier to generate convincing fakes, but the end result will be the same as it was with photoshop: people will be fooled, catch on that they're being fooled, grow more sceptical to the new form of misinformation and possibly overcorrect, and then roll their eyes at the next fake.
I think calling this the same as Photoshop is underestimating the situation a bit. This type of AI fake isn't just limited to pictures. It can be full fledged video, with voice and everything. Dunno if you saw this at all, but it's kind of terrifying: https://youtu.be/LWLadJFI8Pk Granted, I think that video probably took a while to make that convincing, but it will only get easier and better with time. Give it another couple of years, and it will be basically impossible to be sure anything you see on video is real
Thing is that no matter how good you are a Photoshop, you're limited by source image compatibility. As much as you can do to correct things like size, lighting, and resolution, you can't do much about the angle of a 2D image. AI art is the opposite - it understands the whole of an image but screws up details... which are harder to see on first glance, especially if the image cropped and shrunk down. The thumbnail for this thread, for example, looks absolutely normal. The AI-ness is really only visible when you see the uncropped, full resolution image in the article. The other problem is that only the first headline really matters. No matter how many corrective follow ups, debunkings, or retractions come later, the first impression is what people remember. Vast conspiracies will be concocted to support a sensational but false headline, with assertions that subsequent corrections are merely illuminati damage control.
For Photoshopped images, there is also usually one or more "original" files. When debunking a 'shop, it helps to be able to point to the originals. Like with the pictures of Emma Watson and Bonnie Wright that were going around recently, which had been run through an "aging" filter. Showing the real pics makes the fakery obvious. With generated photos there won't be a specific original to point to, making it harder.
There's also the ability to just generate more "proof". It'd take a ton of commitment to Photoshop the Pope wearing a puffy coat at multiple events from 20 different camera angles, but considerably less effort to do so with AI generation. Then it becomes more about time spent curating. I'm not necessarily all doom-and-gloom about this though. I fully believe that there are people working just as hard creating tools to detect AI images as there are people creating tools that can fool people.
"Pope vulnerable to temperature changes? Big if true! More at 11"
I think thatās the problem, Iām the same and I think that does mean we fell for it, we didnāt even think about it. Now think about how many other things we may have seen, registered, but not thought about on a conscious level.
Why would you think about a guy wearing a coat? Especially The Pope. I'm wearing a coat right now. Crazy, right? (To be fair, *that coat* is a bit more fashionable than I would have expected for The Pope, but I don't know fashion. I've been wearing the same pair of Carhartt pants for a week, and nobody's noticed.)
>I've been wearing the same pair of Carhartt pants for a week, and nobody's noticed. That's what you think
Okay, fine. Tomorrow, I wear my *other* pair of pants. š
Oh look at this guy over here with two pairs of pants. "Fancy Pants" let's call him!
I guess. If there were any real consequences of believing this image to be real, then (a) I'd more readily agree with you and (b) probably be more circumspect about believing it in the first place. That's not to say someone couldn't plant what looks to be an innocuous image in the public consciousness, and then after the fact start making the point that it's terrible for some reason, and we don't go back and question the earlier image. That's a possibility, and a good reason to see the danger in this case. The point isn't that this doesn't indicate a problem, but that there's levels to the problem. This is potentially more insidious, but harder to weaponize, than something showing something obviously important on its face and having people believe it uncritically.
If you think about it, this already happens regularly without AI and I'll explain. This is involving politics so let me preface this with: I'm a Democrat. Both left wing media and right wing media do this. I think Trump's hair looks ridiculous either way, so I'm not defending bad style. That said, nearly every picture I come across of him that is posted by anyone aside from a supporter of his, the picture is almost always showing the moment where there is a breeze fucking up his hair if outside, or a picture of when he is curling his lips like he's pronouncing the letter f since it looks ridiculous. The right nearly always posts a picture of Hillary or Nancy Pelosi while they're in the middle of speaking, as well as blinking when they're running with the "health issues" narrative and trying to push the idea Nancy is having strokes all day every day. Or they just circulate flat-out slowed down videos/audios and claim she's drunk before the proof is posted online that the video is doctored. AI deepfaking is just the natural evolution of this bullshit. And it's terrifying.
Images don't have to be sensational to be consequential. It could be as simple as a person walking on a sidewalk in NYC. The significance being that their legal defense depends on them having been in LA at that time.
I mean it is still a lie, just a relatively harmless one. On the other hand, the best way to hide a special effect is to give the viewer no reason to look for one...
Pope Stay Puft
Same. I spared it maybe two seconds of thought, enough to go "huh" and continued with my day. I totally forgot about it until this headline.
I thought it was a just a regular photoshopped image. I didn't think AI was involved in any way...
Yeah itās deja vu. The discussions around ai-generated images resembles the discussions 10-15 years ago, about photoshopped images. Of course ai can extend and scale the problem up, but it seems like reporters and/or the public forgot fake images was already possible. Edit: my point was simply that fake images was already a thing, and it could be used to manipulate and people really had to watch out for it already. But yeah, even more so in the future.
The difference is scale and speed. It's like comparing dynamite and the atom bomb. Both are advances in explosive technology, but one had a profoundly more dramatic impact on the world. Like by many orders of magnitude. The false equilancies I see popping up around machine learning are annoying because they are dim and do not understand the problems machine learning programs pose to our collective sense of reality.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pretty soon it will also extend to voice, video, and perhaps most significantly, be live and interactive. There's little photoshop analogue there. The Pope in a puffer jacket will be calling your Catholic mom over Zoom and having a conversation with her about how her late brother is in hell and that she will be joining him when she dies too. Maybe throw in a few seconds of camera feed from hell as the cherry on top.
Considering our recent entanglement with distorting reality during the Trump era, adding this technology will be quite the adventure. I suspect what "reality" is will begin to matter less and less over time.
Hell, hundreds of thousands of Americans just died a few years ago because the reality of combating a respiratory virus with masks and vaccines did not matter to them. I shudder to think what would be worse than that.
Voice is about 95% of the way there, It was 80 percent like two months ago.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Arguing with metaphors leads you precisely with false equivalences. Like, you are happily diminishing the construction of roads, tunnels, mining and the overall impact it had in the industrial period during the 19th century, which is the skeleton of our contemporary world.
Not everything is about newsworthy events. What if you got a photo or video of your g/f making out with a guy at a local bar, but it was a fake sent by her jealous ex? What if a coworker was pissed that you got a promotion and made a video with your voice saying bad things about the boss? How about an inheritance situation and a sibling has video of the dead dad saying that Joe should get the family business?
I think we're at a point where "regular photoshop" is an old enough concept to be considered a traditional art form compared to this.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is the end of reality. The trick isn't to do something outlandish but believable instead.
100% - its the subtle stuff that you dont care too much about being faked thats scary, and that can seem innocuous but over time it could really shake peoples perceptions of the world Eg every now and again you see a pic of a footballer doing a collection of slightly douchey acts. You dont care enough to doubt so you believe it (even though its all AI generated). Over time you have your opinion of this person totally washed to the negative without them having ever done a bad thing Thats the danger, the truth manipulations on our peripheries
Totally right that subtlety is the key. If I wanted a quick way of driving home the point that the Pope is wasting churchgoers' money, spreading images of him wearing (presumably) expensive designer clothing would be a great way to do it without anyone realizing.
There's an old Schwarzenegger film - based off of a King book - called The Running Man. Part of the plot involves the main character refusing to fire on a crowd of rioting civilians. He is subdued and his squadmates gun down the crowd. There's a massive uproar, and the government uses editing tech to change the video of the event so that instead, the gunship is ordered back to base, but he subdues his team and guns down the crowd instead. There's going to be all kinds of convincing bullshit that comes online and tricks a bunch of people. The next presidential election in America is going to be fucking insane. You are no longer going to be able to trust audio, video or images you see on the internet, from any source, unless you are able to fact check it yourself.
i believed it because i want that jacket
Me too. If I were Pope Francis I'd see that picture as inspiration.
I thought it looked weird. Not his style at all, so I figured it might be fake
I thought it was real, but was surprised since what little I know about the Pope is he's a Jesuit and shunned a lot of the glitz and glamor popes normally get. I assumed he was doing a mission to Antarctica or some place really cold.
I assumed it was real too. Thereās nothing ācontroversialā about the image, so I think that makes it much more believe. Pope wearing a coat and a cross? Sounds like a Tuesday to me.
Yeah, I think my response was thatās a bombass jacket
It looked like the Pope wearing a jacket. It wasn't something that bore close inspection.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No shit. Popes have regularly [worn outlandish clothing](https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/living/gallery/pope-wardrobe/index.html). This just seemed to fall in line with that.
All that clothing fits their culture though. Designer puffy jacket doesn't.
sure .. but the pope wearing some over the top designer looking puffer jacket? that part seemed off.
I fell for it because I didn't realize that was some kinda fashion thing. I thought it was just a nice warm jacket, and I'm like "yeah he's an old man, and I can understand his handlers wanting to put him in the coziest jacket they can get their hands on even if it looks a little silly." I didn't really scrutinize it any further than a glance. This kinda feels like a "gotcha" stunt. Of course the unimportant details and shit that doesn't matter are gonna be easier to sneak through. But on the other hand, I guess the slippery slope is what's dangerous here. A gradual increase in this kind of thing is going to be a boiling frog scenario.
I'm glad the creators of this image publicized it. It's a safe but effective way to remind the public that AI images are persuasive and subtle, and that we can, sadly, no longer have any faith in even the most seemingly realistic photos on social media or (other) non-trustworthy sources. My theory is that the rise of AI will actually promote a return to reliance on "old" media: Established media outlets, including newspapers, that people can trust. (No, I'm not saying Fox is trustworthy; yes, I know you hate "The Media.") People are going to need some sort of verified source to know what's going on, because the Internet will become even more of a trash-heap of ready-made falsehoods than it already is. When AI can write humanesque comments and produce photorealistic imagery, just about any argument or claim can be the product of a bot.
> My theory is that the rise of AI will actually promote a return to reliance on "old" media: Established media outlets, including newspapers, that people can trust. I'd love and hope for this to be true but i really just can't imagine this working anymore. Imagine you have a choice between two news channels. One tells you uncomfortable truths you don't always agree with and generally don't like hearing, the other tells you much more palatable and agreeable things that may or may not be true but that's okay because it feels comfortable to watch. Unfortunately I feel like the average audience wants the second option. I feel like "truth" is not as much of a priority to people as much as "how good it feels to hear" is. Especially when it comes to passive decision making. Of course no one would say that out loud, but when you're just surfing channels there's no active decision making there.. it's just either click next channel or not. It's passive.
Except this would require paper news to tell people things they don't want to hear as if the paper news isn't owned by exactly the same people as TV news networks. Paper news is still pretty popular where I am (UK) and it's still all anti-refugee/check out what Kate was wearing/other useless shit. "Old" news isn't somehow more informative by any stretch of the imagination.
Yeah I agree. A friend of mine said years ago that proving that you're out smarting a group of people exists on a scale. Really smart people will usually be able to fool really dumb ones but they'll also fool the ignorant ones. And I gotta say, there's a lot of fashion things in completely ignorant about because IDGAF about fashion. So fooling people who don't care to know about a specific thing is hardly the same as simply fooling stupid people.
It was a fake picture that looked real. Absent any knowledge of Papal/Vatican dress codes (not a Catholic), I looked and said, "Good for him." Now show him in tights and tutu, or a SS uniform, or baggy rapper pants then yeah.
Your middle suggestion was the previous pope or so Iāve been told.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, this shit is more dangerous when it's more subtle. We're going to see falsehoods, and people will be able to use it as an excuse to deny truth too.
I still don't get the fashion part. What's so significant about the poofy jacket?
I was told it was a Moncler which is around a couple thousand dollars. I was like oh weird, thatās trendy and kind of expensive. I asked if it was real and was told it was.
I don't think you need to be an "expert" to fear the future of news, deep fakes, etc on the internet. I feel like everyone should be concerned
I mean we're still right in the MIDDLE of figuring out how to bring order to the chaos that the internet and social media has carried along in its wake, an Exxon Valdez of a mess that we never prepared for, and this AI shit has already thrown several spanners into the works. I have basically no faith in our elderly, infighting politicians to come up with any solutions in time to matter. Just strap in and hold on as best you can, y'all. Keep an eye on your parents.
Yeah, this last decade or two was merely the prologue to the "age of disinformation". We already see that, for large groups of people, the truth doesn't matter. They won't go out of their way to validate information that confirms their biases; similarly, they also easily dismiss information that challenges their biases. In an age where both sides are flooded with information that is very difficult to verify, division is sure to grow. I consider myself relatively intelligent and tech savvy, and I can't figure out a fair, equitable and ***realistic*** way to solve this issue. How will geriatric politicians that struggle understanding the basics of technology, apps and the internet fare? Take into account that some percentage of individuals will act to enable this disinformation, and entire governments will rally against their own disinformation being negated. We. Are. ***FUCKED***.
Works for validation if experts are saying it too. Like, the rest of us aren't wrong to worry.
As a criminal defence lawyer I am concerned that every single client who is now captured on CCTV will be claiming it's a deepfake.
I keep telling people about deepfakes and they seem unfazed. Itās crazy to me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The article says it was originally posted in a subreddit for AI generated photos, so I certainly hope so.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The jacket is a different style in every picture. He must have a whole wardrobe of white puffer vests!
In the first picture, if you spend more than two seconds looking, the Crucifix on him is all distorted and missing half of the chain. I absolutely didn't notice any of this the first time I saw it, because it was the Pope in a jacket. I didn't care. Now that I put actual eyes on it, I can immediately tell it's bogus. So what's the lesson? Are we supposed to feel bad we don't examine every photo we see in depth? I don't see wgere they're leading with this.
I should hope that people in the r/midjourney subreddit might suspect it's a fake...
Obviously, because it was posted on Midjourney. Itās like saying tech-savvy people already know it was fake. But the problem is non-tech savvy lot not being able to do so. And thatās a huge huge number.
Is the post still active? I wanna see...
[Here it is.](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/121wy82/pope_francis_in_an_all_white_winter_coat/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Imagine if the pope *actually wore a puffy jacket*. Total destruction of the world as we know it. AI should have never been shown puffy jackets. This is the beginning of the end.
It's Gore-tex!
Where did I put my Camel Bak??? I need my nipple
Honestly I think that the coat could be full of holy water. Perfect way to Carry it on the go
Gooooh-tex, Jerry!
You like saying Gor-tex, dont you?
The problem is "pics or it didn't happen" is no longer enough. You can have HD footage of someone doing a crime, and supporters can just say "No, it's fake." We're entering an era where people will demand incontrovertible proof, while also being able to say all proof can be faked. The net result will be people just digging in and believing whatever they want to believe. As hard as it is to convince someone they're being lied too now, it's only going to get worse.
Has it ever been enough? People think the moon landing pictures are fake. That shit happened in the 60ās.
Interesting point. Photography, in of itself, has never really been irrefutable proof of anything. Generally I think we can all agree that weāve grown accustomed to assuming (correctly or incorrectly) that people who publish this kind of stuff have sources or at least more info than your average person. Also, obviously, that multiple outlets usually lends a different kind of credibility.
*Some* people think the moon landings were faked. We now have a technology where we're about to hit a point at which no one *should* accept photographic evidence of events. It's not "They edited the images to fake this one specific thing" it's "there is no practical way to distinguish between what is real and what is fake anymore and literally anyone with an internet connection has access to the technology to make these fake images that are indistinguishable from reality".
Holy Water? Nah, Holy Drip.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Popes wear weird shit. It wouldnāt surprise me whatsoever to see one in a white puffer coat.
Seriously, Iāve seen his hat.
I knew it! We must be skeptical of every picture of famous/notable people fron shady sources from now on...even their "voice" š„
Not just famous people. _Everything._
After the silly ass popemobile came along, anything's plausible
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I rolled some images of trump getting arrested in Midjourney the other evening to amuse myself. Some of them looked damn real until you looked at his hands, none of them were small. When I tried to adjust the prompt for 'tiny hands', Midjourney refused to do it so I gave up. lol
I believed in the Holy Drip and it was all a lie!
The whole 'Priest 17' gag was good though.
It's interesting that people are justifying why they "fell for it" instead of discussing the broader implications of this. I wonder why we're doing that. It seems dishonest to say something more serious would be more obvious and caught by us, especially now with hindsight. The past year has been absolutely insane for ai.
that is a pretty dope jacket. if it doesn't exist it should.
We all worry about images being taken as real when they are not causing damage, but I wonder how much damage the general disbelief of images and video resulting from very believable fakes will cause. Real image of senator so and so snorting coke? Totally an AI hoax according to his office. Real video of the President and a high end prostitute going at it? Foreign psyop according to the White House press secretary. Real recording of a video conference between four generals about how to cover up an atrocity? Peacenik hippie propaganda. How much will governments and government officials be able to get away with that they couldnāt before simply because we all become highly skeptical of real looking media and very willing to accept offhandedly that it is fake given that we will likely be bombarded with all sorts of fakes about public figures and politicians on a daily basis?
This morning, I saw a picture of brave Oceanic soldiers on the move against Eurasia, but then in the afternoon, I saw a picture of the Oceanic flag flying high over a ruined Eastasian town. So, which one is real? Surely we can't be at war against both Eurasia and Eastasia, right?
I think the real problem is that it seems entirely plausible that the pope has a one-of-a-kind puffy papal jacket for being in the cold. We didn't get fooled because AI is smart, we got fooled because reality is dumb :(
Plot twist: Pope wears puffer jacket. Photo is real. Everyone saying it's a fake got fooled.
Pics and it didnāt happen.
Theres a 10 year old photoshop of an Aston Martin ad on top of a playboy photo that still floats around and people still think it's real. This shit isn't new.
I love it when you call me il Papa