this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
415 points (90.9% liked)

Technology

59578 readers
3168 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Come on, science fiction had similar technologies to fake things since 40s. The writing was on the wall.

It didn't really work outside of authors' and readers' imagination, but the only reason we're scared is that we're forced into centralized hierarchical systems in which it's harder to defend.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, sure, deception as a concept has always been around. But let me just put it this way:

How many more scam emails, scam texts, how many more data leaks, conspiracy theories are going around these days? All of these things always existed. The Nigerian prince scam. That one’s been around forever. The door-to-door salesman, that one’s been around forever. The snake oil charlatan. Scams and lies have been around since we could communicate, probably. But never before have we been bombarded with them like we are today. Before, it took a guy with a rotary phone and a phone book a full day to try to scam 100 people. Now 100 calls go out all at once with a different fake phone number for each, spoofed to be as close to the recipient’s number as possible.

The effort input needed for these things have dropped significantly with new tech, and their prevalence skyrocketed. It’s not a new story. In fact, it’s a very old story. It’s just more common and much easier, so it’s taken up by more people because it’s more lucrative. Why spend all of your time trying to hack a campaign’s email (which is also still happening), when you can make one suspicious picture and get all of your bots to get it trending so your company gets billions in tax breaks? All at the click of a button. Then send your spam bots to call millions of people a day to spread the information about the picture, and your email bots to spam the picture to every Facebook conspiracy theorist. All in a matter of seconds.

This isn’t a matter of “what if.” This is kind of just the law of scams. It will be used for evil. No question. And it does have an effect. You can’t have random numbers call you anymore without you immediately expecting their spam. Soon, you won’t be able to get photo evidence without immediately thinking it might be fake. Water flows downhill, new tech gets used for scams. The like a law of nature at this point.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wise people still teach their children (and remind themselves) not to talk to strangers, say "no" if not sure, mind their own business because their attention and energy are not infinite, and trust only family.

You can’t have random numbers call you anymore without you immediately expecting their spam.

You'd be wary of people who are not your neighbors in the Middle Ages. Were you a nobleman, you'd still mostly talk to people you knew since childhood, yours or theirs, and the rare new faces would be people you've heard about since childhood, yours or theirs.

It's not a new danger. Even qualitatively - the change for a villager coming to a big city during the industrial revolution was much more radical.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That’s exactly what I meant when I said:

It’s not a new story. In fact, it’s a very old story.

And you just kinda proved my point. As time has gone on, the great of deception has grown with new technology. This is just the latest iteration. And every new one has expanded the chances/danger exponentially.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What I really meant is that humanity is a self-regulating system. This disturbance will be regulated just as well as those other ones.

The unpleasant thing is that the example I've given involved lots of new power being created, while our disturbance is the opposite - people\forces already having power desperately trying to preserve their relative weight, at the cost of preventing new power being created.

But we will see if they'll succeed. After all, the very reason they are doing this is because they can't create power, and that is because their institutional understanding is lacking, and this in turn means that they are not in fact doing what they think they are. And by forcing those who can create power to the fringe, they are accelerating the tendencies for relief.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don’t think this is the power redistribution you’re implying it is. I’m not actually sure what you mean by that. The power to create truths? To spread propaganda? I can’t think of any other power this tech would redistribute. Would you mind explaining?

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't mean anything by that, because I didn't say anything about any redistribution.

If your question is what does this have to do with ability to easily generate fakes - then the power created would be in killing untrusted (as opposed to webs of trust and f2f) web. It's a good thing.

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Mind explaining what you meant then? I guess I misunderstood your point

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I meant the second sentence)

[–] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh I thought we were having a friendly discussion. I didn’t know we were arguing. My bad, I’ll change my tone

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

We were, I've just answered your question before you asking it, so referred to that