this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
376 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

60134 readers
3275 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 130 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Documentaries often include recreations of events, such as historical events that weren't filmed. It's usually noted as being a recreation or re-enactment. If AI-created images are used instead and are noted as being such, I don't really see the problem, assuming the images are curated to depict the scene accurately.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 8 months ago (2 children)

The problem in both cases is that people remember these artistic depiction as real, even if there's a disclosure.

[–] db2 19 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Are we worrying about the fully functional adults that still need to be told not to drink Draino?

[–] [email protected] 29 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It wouldn’t be such a concern if they didn’t make up like 40% of the population.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 8 months ago

Global population? You say "the", so you obviously mean the one we have in common.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 8 months ago (1 children)

We're all susceptible to this stuff, even when we're aware of it.

[–] masquenox 4 points 8 months ago

As someone who actually worked in the corporate propaganda industry... I concur.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you think you are impervious to this, then I got news for you.

[–] db2 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think I'm pretty impervious to the impulse of drinking drain cleaner. 🤷

[–] Daft_ish 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ok but drinking draino is the cure for all life's problems. To each their own, though.

[–] db2 2 points 8 months ago

That or seeing Batman.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 6 points 8 months ago

Yeah television doesn’t affect anyone. That’s been a great success. Fox News anybody? Pizzagate?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

That argument extends to any realistic recreation of events. It's not wrong, I'm just not sure what could be done about it.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 8 months ago

This is how I'm leaning too. If done appropriately this should be no different than "this is a reenactment of events" seen in 90s and 00s true crime shows.

The big challenge is getting the content creators to respect that template and not bury the disclosure in the credits.

[–] homesweethomeMrL -1 points 8 months ago

Yeah they shouldn’t do that either

[–] just_another_person -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

A recreation is a scripted recreation, and I believe legally required to be noted as such. Whether that's in the credits or on screen at time of playing I think is at the discretion of the filmmaker and editors.

Wildly different concept than generative AI models doing whatever they feel. At the end of the day, I can see why some people can't see the difference, but it's huge. I'd also say that if the former were improperly used in a horrific way, you'd just say "Well the viewers can stay away from that documentary", but as we we've all seen over the past decade or so, once the falsely represented account of events is out there, you can't stop it from spreading. Whether is a still image, or a reenactment. One has current legal repercussions and is covered by libel and slander protections, and the other doesn't. World of difference.

[–] NegativeInf 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I.. I don't think they are generating the history on the fly for each individual playback. Probably just generating images based on the concept, iteratively tweaking until it conveys the message that is desired by the artist. You know. Like most artistic works. AI is another tool.

Not to say training data being copped from hardworking artists is good, but an ethically trained AI for image generation for this context is not necessarily evil if it is used in the context of executing the artist's vision in the way they deem necessary and sufficient. Relying on outside people can often cloud the vision of a project.

That being said, pay artists for their work, license if you want to train, and credit/royalties should be paid until copyright expires or the rights are purchased outright for a competitive compensation.

[–] just_another_person 2 points 8 months ago

The point is more that false "recreations" are protected when you have a planned and scripted setup to film and display it. Generative AI is not included in those laws yet, which is why everyone is trying to get their bullshit in while they can.