Twitter, X, FB, Truth, Et cetera

[Ellsworth]

I've been considering how content might be presented online, in such a way that viewers could have reasonable faith that the content is not deep fake.

None of the current platforms seem sufficient..

I would love to see Deep Voodoo address this need.
https://variety.com/2022/digital/new...ng-1235466563/

Where all posted content is tested at time of posting and verified as non-AI generated.
And where the content is retested at regular intervals (monthly? quarterly? Randomly? Risk based frequency?).

Until then, I have thought up only one trust builder that content creators could use immediately, on any platform.

The power of an Affidavit.

A channel owner could create a sworn affidavit, under penalty of the perjury laws of [pick a state], stating that no content has been (or will be) generated by AI.

Like the Creative Commons copyright system, it would benefit from added nuance (tiers?).
I.e. No-AI was used. Minimal AI was used (list, color correction, simple edits, no special effects, titles etc). Et cetera.

Admittedly it's an inadequate, trust based idea. It works best in 'perfect form' (aka unrealize-able state of perfect compliance).

I think we need something like Deep Voodoo to counteract the mesmerizing magic. (use whatever cute names you like in place of voodoo and magic).

Disclaimer: I have never formally used AI (sought to use it).
I may have used AI as it becomes embedded into 'traditional services' like standard google search.

[Ellsworth]

Will deep fakes help usher in a wide scale user move to VR? (acceptance of VR)

A) Old view: internet content is mostly 'real.'
B) New view with deep fakes and AI: internet is mostly fake

Virtual reality:
Is VR real or fake in comparison to A?
Is VR real or fake in comparison to B?

Edited to add:
I realized a lot of inherent flaws with the base assumptions.
My thoughts on this are scrap!

So only the question remains: will AI + Deepfakes hasten the adoption of VR?

[Ellsworth]

Elon Musk picked the perfect first candidate for a brain implant -- for marketing reasons and social acceptance.

Here's my bare bones assessment, and this is something I think about because it has personal meaning:

1) The young, male, experimental subject was young, verbal and photogenic. The opposite of me.

2) The young, male, experimental subject plays copious amounts of video games and can articulate how the implant helps with that. The opposite of me.

Strong appeal to the below 30 year old generational cohorts.
Strong move trying for social acceptance of the tech, without any real need for wide-scale understanding/discussion of the morals/ethics.

At it's root, it was surely about picking the right candidate. After that, it's all parameters.

[Ellsworth]

Disclaimer, I dislike X because of the joke (maybe I should like it as a warning?).

On most websites that clamor for users to share content, the way to do it (at a glance) is F X.
It's just alphabetical order (and a old movie from 1986).
It's just social effects.

Edited to add:

The F X scenario on websites (i.e. alphabetical order to the repost links) could also have been intended to reference a very specific form of autism.
That makes it a non-joke.

And in my personal life, I noticed that when some black dogs age... the greying of the fur upon their face can make it seem like the dog has an X right between its eyes (that's also no joke).

[Ellsworth]

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/18/nx-s1...ers-propaganda

https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/october-21/