On reddit people are discussing the very quick cementing of this new truth, where everything can retroactively be waved off as having been AI.

People talk about the loss of certainty on everything ever since AI became a significant factor.

I disagree, it would be pandemonium if everything needs double checking and nothing is real. I think there is an obvious solution:

Make it into law that any official statement is assumed true unless it’s redacted by the subject within a set amount of time.

Make it so people have an appeal window to any news outlet, with heavy consequences for platforms that do not redact.

We cannot be living in psychosis bizzarroland, and if Bibi says he’s alive then take the countries word for it.

Let’s say someone claims with a video that Trump is dead and replaced by a clone. Why would we allow for people to believe in that kind of nonsense which is obviously meant to divide people and turn a lot of them into crazies. If the administration would claim it’s untrue, then that should be published as truth using no uncertain terms: article x was deepfakes

Anyone who claims differently afterwards is perpetuating lies and should be held accountable

  • einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    That’s a terrible idea. Administrations would have to issue statements 24/7.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      You’re not wrong, but, eh. I wanna see the obviously-fake-statements by obviously-not-trump. This might get interesting.

    • Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      “That’s a bad idea because I think it would be hard” You’re presuming that they wouldn’t have to avoid lying as much.

      • einkorn@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        OK, let me put it this way: I set up 50 shell newspapers that push 100 articles per day along the line of “Politician A is a reptilian”, “Government Y is hiding aliens”, etc. Do you really think it is productive work for an administration to a) find these statements, b) research the validity (after all an otherwise unknown agency could really be hiding aliens), c) rebute or confirm the statement and d) enforce the rebuttal?

      • einkorn@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 hours ago

        An AI chatbot? A technology that’s notorious for making shit up is supposed to analyze the truth behind a random statement?