Such deepfakes are unequivocally a lie, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's free speech. Identifying them for what they are benefits those of us who seek facts. So who's harmed by such a requirement? In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

Fear and calls for censorship have always accompanied new advances in communication. The catholic church was against the printing press, for example. But while the printing press was used for nefarious purposes such as the spreading of false information, sowing confusion, and insulting established authority, it was also key to the enlightenment, progress, and liberation. I'd hate to see a church censor's watermark on a copy of Les Misérables, for instance.

The artist, those of us who look at it, and posterity are harmed by your actions, which amount to vandalism. It's not up to you to deface someone's work. Imagine the deepfake show "Sassy Justice", from the creators of Southpark, with your ugly watermark on it.

The artist, those of us who look at it, and posterity are harmed by your actions, which amount to vandalism. It's not up to you to deface someone's work. Imagine the deepfake show "Sassy Justice", from the creators of Southpark, with your ugly watermark on it. — NOS4A2

This is attempted gaslighting.

We can add to that the fact that you see yourself as being in a community of one and show no signs of having empathy for others.

Are you ready to take your best guess yet?

This is attempted gaslighting.

We can add to that the fact that you see yourself as being in a community of one and show no signs of having empathy for others.

Are you ready to take your best guess yet?

Attempted gaslighting...it is coming more and more evident that you're feeling like an abused girlfriend. Am I getting close?

Actually all air vibrations, including non-speech, are transduced into electrical energy in modern smart-home systems. In the case of speech recognition It is the software that filters out the speech from the non-speech sounds. So the speech has no more causal power than any other sound. — NOS4A2

So the speech, which caused the electrical signal that the software passed and interpreted, did not cause the lights to turn off? The software did? Or the electrical energy did?

If you are at someone's home, and say "Alexa, lights off" or whatever, and the host asks you why you turned off the lights, you answer "I didn't turn them off. The electrical energy did!"

Can you see why this is either a joke or sophomoric nonsense?

Attempted gaslighting...it is coming more and more evident that you're feeling like an abused girlfriend. Am I getting close? — NOS4A2

Hmm. Have you had many girlfriends who felt abused by you?

But no. Care to try again?

So you agree it's a reasonable infringement on free speech, because it can cause damage. — Relativist

What I am arguing is that laws against harmful speech are not an infringement upon free speech as defined by the First Amendment. The First Amendment did not overturn the laws against fraud, libel, based upon harm that was inherited from English Common Law and developed in U.S law. We are expected to speak without harming people. The point of tort law is that such harm becomes something legally actionable when it can be reasonably proven by rules of evidence and procedure.

Free speech in the First Amendment deals specifically with whether the 'Government', the acting power of the state, can protect itself from speech for the sake of preserving that power. Each of the ten Bill of Rights directly addresses ways 'Government' becomes too powerful. Casting these restrictions as "infringements" of otherwise infinitely unencumbered potentialities weakens their utility as protections against tyranny.

In my first response to you in this thread, I began by agreeing with you that:

Censorship is not the only way to deal with disinformation. — Relativist

The laws we have regarding fraud and libel are not censorship. A secular life of individual autonomy without them is the war of all against all. The life of the secular also requires a willingness to speak honestly for the sake of the life it makes possible. That willingness is the element that cannot be legislated or put in a company manual. That is an element absent from Nos4atu's peculiar brand of solipsism.

On that basis, I think the problem of deep fake images is a profound one which should be and will be addressed in all sorts of exchanges beyond the political. As a matter of participatory politics, maybe nothing more can be done in the near future than inculcate a skepticism shared by enough people of what the images are reporting. This includes imagined scenes of eating cats. There is an inflationary aspect to it all. It becomes less meaningful with each use. At some point, it is up to the citizen whether to keep purchasing it.

To be ignorant and to be deceived are two different things. To be ignorant is to be a slave of the world. To be deceived is to be the slave of another man. The question will always be: Why, when all men are ignorant, and therefore already slaves, does this latter slavery sting us so?

Agensis - First Analect of Men :cool:

My guess at the answer to the question is an evolved cheater detection module.

To the extent ignorance is "enslavement", it is an enslavement imposed on oneself (assuming free access to information). While deception is "enslavement" imposed by an other.

But of course the topic is not mere deception, but disinformation, which is deception on an industrial scale.

You addressed nothing I said. You seem to be unable to think beyond "censorship bad".

The Axios article linked to a Pew survey that showed Republicans are more likely than Democrats to mistrust scientists. — Relativist

This is probably true because the Republicans are more religious and have a history of rejecting evolution. Scientists (and doctors) don't do themselves any favors when they become political as some have. And we should not forget that a defining aspect of science is that current theories are meant to be questioned and challenged. It's how progress is made (think of Galileo and Darwin) in challenging the status quo. You can only get there with free speech and exposing your theories to falsification. Some scientists seem to forget this.

I've never seen anyone denying the biological facts regarding sex. Are you perhaps referring to the trend to treat gender as a social role that can sometimes be inconsistent with biological sex? — Relativist

Everyone that I've asked to define gender just ends up giving me traits of biological sex (why change your biology if gender is a social role?) or sexist tropes (being a woman is wearing high heels and make-up).

Yes, that's unfortunate and it's exacerbated by the political parties. GOP leaders have to cater to their base by appealing to their anti-science trends and the embrace of conspiracy theories. In the process, they draw in more of the lunatic fringe - to which they will them endeavor to continue to court. The only remotely similar thing I see the Dems doing is to tiptoe around policies and attitudes toward transgenders. — Relativist

and systemic racism, identity politics, victimization (Republicans play the victimization game to), etc. I am Independent because I see extremists on both sides taking over the parties. It doesn't matter who wins because each one has authoritarian tendencies and we keep losing our freedoms slowly over time. I think Joe Dementia Biden has shown that it really doesn't matter who is president as they are not in control. Joe the Plumber could be the president and it wouldn't make a difference. But think about what would happen if you ran for office and made statements that you wanted to end corruption, and actually follow through with that threat. You would make enemies on both sides. They don't like outsiders coming in and upsetting their gravy train.

Everyone gets one term? I'd support that, but it won't happen - it would take a constitutional amendment. I'd like to see critical thinking skills taught in schools- but I anticipate Christian groups would oppose it. — Relativist

Not necessarily. If people wised up and voted for alternate candidates instead of Democrats or Republicans we could impose term limits ourselves. Critical thinking - That is why I am for school choice so that I have the option to send my kids to STEM schools (which I have).

Free speech has never meant the freedom to say whatever you want wherever you want. Are laws against fraud and libel to be dispensed with because they infringe free speech?

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate? — Relativist

But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about misinformation. Who gets to define what misinformation is, if not logic and reason?

, what's taken to be true is important in decision-making. Pollution doesn't help.

Think you can get on without? Can deduce it all from something else? Exclusively trust yourself? — Sep 22, 2024

So we worry about the believers in misinformation. — NOS4A2

I'd say worry about both, dis/mal/misinformation being wrong in the first place.
"Ye shan't believe dis/mal/misinformation" won't work, whether edged into lawbooks or not. :D
Sure, you might argue whichever way I suppose. Extremes for the occasion: people should be entirely free to spread dis/mal/misinformation; people spreading dis/mal/misinformation should be guillotined.

we strike a balance of sorts between freedom and disincentive — Sep 22, 2024

:100: I like that!

So the speech, which caused the electrical signal that the software passed and interpreted, did not cause the lights to turn off? The software did? Or the electrical energy did?

If you are at someone's home, and say "Alexa, lights off" or whatever, and the host asks you why you turned off the lights, you answer "I didn't turn them off. The electrical energy did!"

Can you see why this is either a joke or sophomoric nonsense?

No, I don’t quibble much in everyday conversation. I would say, “yes, I turned the lights off”.

But then again everyday conversation doesn’t center much around metaphysics. Only if someone in this domain of discourse tells me my speech turned the lights off will I tell them they believe in sorcery. Your voice hasn’t moved a single switch in your whole life, but here you are acting like it does.

But no. Care to try again?

It was just a question. Touchy subject, I’m sure.

You addressed nothing I said. You seem to be unable to think beyond "censorship bad".

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith.

Good man.

The truth does not require your participation in order to exist. Bullshit does! — Terence McKenna

It was just a question. — NOS4A2

It was a question which demonstrated your lack of empathy towards abused women. So it seems appropriate to consider the extent to which your perspective is a result of Psychopathy:

Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality,[1] is a personality construct[2][3] characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, in combination with traits of boldness, disinhibition, and egocentrism. These traits are often masked by superficial charm and immunity to stress[4], which create an outward appearance of apparent normalcy.

No, you’ve addressed nothing I’ve said, while I’ve answered countless of your questions and tried to follow your logic in good faith. — NOS4A2

You didn't answer these specific questions:

Regarding Edgar shooting up the Pizzaria: you agreed the disinformation he received was a necessary condition to his action, but then you (bizarrely) claimed the disinformation did no "contribute" to his bad act. I asked, and you did not answer: "So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Regarding my proposal to require watermarks on deepfaked videos, I asked (and you did not answer): who's harmed by such a requirement?
In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?"

What questions of yours did I fail to answer?

Fox News lost a big lawsuit to Dominion Voting Systems for spreading lies that hurt their businss. Was that inappropriate?
— Relativist
But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about misinformation. Who gets to define what misinformation is, if not logic and reason? — Harry Hindu

I've personally been discussing DISinformation: lies. Disinformation that is repeated becomes misinformation - a tougher problem to deal with. But knowingly spouting falsehoods isn't so fuzzy. Fox knew they were telling falsehoods, and were appropriately held to account.

The person who creates a deepfake video knows he's faking it - lying. That's not a matter of alternative opinions, it's an unequivical fact. That's worth addressing, and entails no ambiguity.

No, I don’t quibble much in everyday conversation. I would say, “yes, I turned the lights off”. — NOS4A2

But you quibble here?

Why is your metaphysics "quibbling" in one context, but in the more important context of misinformation it is somehow relevant?

If the metaphysics were sound maybe that would be one thing. But it is not. You are confusing "cause" with "direct cause". My voice cannot directly turn off the lights. But it can still turn off the lights with Alexa.

Regarding Edgar shooting up the Pizzaria: you agreed the disinformation he received was a necessary condition to his action, but then you (bizarrely) claimed the disinformation did no "contribute" to his bad act. I asked, and you did not answer: "So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?" — Relativist

This has been addressed already. Do you believe that playing violent video games leads one to shoot up schools? Should we ban violent video games, or sue the developers? Not everyone that plays violent video games goes and shoots up a school. Why?

Regarding my proposal to require watermarks on deepfaked videos, I asked (and you did not answer): who's harmed by such a requirement?
In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?" — Relativist

I've personally been discussing DISinformation: lies. Disinformation that is repeated becomes misinformation - a tougher problem to deal with. But knowingly spouting falsehoods isn't so fuzzy. Fox knew they were telling falsehoods, and were appropriately held to account.

The person who creates a deepfake video knows he's faking it - lying. That's not a matter of alternative opinions, it's an unequivical fact. That's worth addressing, and entails no ambiguity. — Relativist

So are you saying that we should depend on the person who knows he is faking it to add watermarks to their own video? If not, who decides what is a deep face video and what isn't if not logic and reason? Doesn't the deep fake video need to be released so that it is exposed to public criticism - to logic and reason. If it isn't released and circulates among a private group, how are we suppose to stop that? Your proposals to solve the problem do not seem to fit with the way these things work.

It was a question which demonstrated your lack of empathy towards abused women. So it seems appropriate to consider the extent to which your perspective is a result of Psychopathy:

No, it was the question about why you're doing this. You haven't stopped writing about me yet, telling someone you have never met that they lack empathy and are psychopathic. I'm just curious as to why.

But you quibble here?

Why is your metaphysics "quibbling" in one context, but in the more important context of misinformation it is somehow relevant?

If the metaphysics were sound maybe that would be one thing. But it is not. You are confusing "cause" with "direct cause". My voice cannot directly turn off the lights. But it can still turn off the lights with Alexa.

Ahh, "directly". Just great. So what can your voice directly do then?

So how can you say the disinformation didn't contribute to this bad thing occurring?"

Misinformation cannot control a motor cortext. It did not plan the attack or load the weapon. Information cannot act. It did not contribute to the act because it is incapable of contributing.

who's harmed by such a requirement?

I did answer this question.

In what ways would we be better off by having these unequivocal lies compete with actual truth?

For one, deep fakes are not "unequivocal lies", as is demonstrated by the show Sassy Justice. We'd be better off without you telling us what is true or false, what is allowed and what isn't, and for us to figure out on our own accord what is true or false without a third party such as yourself.

Ahh, "directly". Just great. So what can your voice directly do then? — NOS4A2

Also "immediate cause" or "proximate cause".
My voice directly stimulates cochlea, or a electronic sensor.

By your "metaphysics", a twitch of an index finger never killed anyone, nor usually a gun, but only bullets. So nothing to fear from someone with a gun.

But I do think that at a certain point repression can become indiscriminate insofar as totalitarian regimes go, almost to the point of doing it for its own sake, i.e. I don't think every suppressive law in North Korea, for instance, is a cog in some intricate machine that operates totally efficiently and always in a directed manner to serve a greater purpose. — ToothyMaw

No, it is never that, never 4d chess. 4d chess is almost always the wrong answer.

I think the idea is always "stability", where "stability" is implicitly or explicitly the perpetuation of the ruling regime. They achieve this by repression, by squelching any possible threat. And they might do this crudely, stupidly, without regard to human cost.

No, it was the question about why you're doing this. You haven't stopped writing about me yet, telling someone you have never met that they lack empathy and are psychopathic. I'm just curious as to why. — NOS4A2

Because I think there is something more useful to consider than the thread's title question, "Why should we worry about misinformation?"

Regardless of any matter of "should" there is the simple matter that some people do care about the damage to humanity that results from the propagation of disinformation and misinformation, and some people don't. To justify that all people should care, it would seem important that all people could care. So the topic of whether some people can't care is relevant, and that brings up psychopathy and whether you are capable of caring about the damage to humanity resulting from misinformation.

This has been addressed already. Do you believe that playing violent video games leads one to shoot up schools? Should we ban violent video games, or sue the developers? Not everyone that plays violent video games goes and shoots up a school. Why? — Harry Hindu

False equivalence. Deep fakes are inherently falsehoods, whereas videogames are inherently fictional. I haven't suggested banning them - I just proposed identifying what they are. Video games are clearly identified as GAMES; no one is being deceived.

So are you saying that we should depend on the person who knows he is faking it to add watermarks to their own video? — Harry Hindu

Software is used to create them, and these software tools could automatically add a watermark. If someone removed the watermark, hacked the software, or developed their own, they would be criminally liable.

If not, who decides what is a deep face video and what isn't if not logic and reason?

Deepfake can entail faking a voice and image of a public figure. There's nothing ambiguous about it. Logic and reason can't identify it, if it's sufficiently sophisticated- and the sophistication is getting increasingly better.

In the absence of deepfakes, logic and reason would dictate treating videos as among the best evidence for determining what a person has said or done. If we can't even trust videos, our ability to discern truth is severely hampered.

Doesn't the deep fake video need to be released so that it is exposed to public criticism - to logic and reason. If it isn't released and circulates among a private group, how are we suppose to stop that? Your proposals to solve the problem do not seem to fit with the way these things work.

If sufficiently sophisticated, they will become impossible to distinguish from actual videos. Further, their existence provides an excuse for a public figure to deny incriminating video evidence of wrongdoing. No longer will we be able to say "seeing is believing".

Understand that we aren't quite at the point where deepfakes are indistinguishable from real videos. But we're heading in that direction, so now is the time to get out ahead of the projected future problem.