Technology

59629 readers

2700 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

641

The White House wants to 'cryptographically verify' videos of Joe Biden so viewers don't mistake them for AI deepfakes (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

261 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The White House wants to 'cryptographically verify' videos of Joe Biden so viewers don't mistake them for AI deepfakes::Biden's AI advisor Ben Buchanan said a method of clearly verifying White House releases is "in the works."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Once people get used to cryptographical signed videos, why only trust one source? If a news outlet is found signing a fake video, they will be in trouble. Loss of said trust if nothing else.

We should get to the point we don't trust unsigned videos.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If a news outlet is found signing a fake video, they will be in trouble.

I see you've never heard of Fox News before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies#Video_footage_manipulation

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, and now people don't trust Fox News, to the point it is close to being banned from being used as a source for anything on Wikipedia

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I don't know that 'about to be banned by Wikipedia' is a good metric for how much the general American public trusts Fox News. It could be that most of them don't, but that is not a good way to tell considering there's no general public input on what Wikipedia accepts as a source.

Also, it should have been banned by Wikipedia years ago.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Not trusting unsigned videos is one thing, but will people be judging the signature or the content itself to determine if it is fake?

Why only one source should be trusted is a salient point. If we are talking trust: it feels entirely plausible that an entity could use its trust (or power) to manufacture a signature.

And for some it is all too relevant that an entity like the White House, (or the gambit of others, past or present), have certainly presented false informstion as true to do things like invade countries.

Trust is a much more flexible concept that is willing to be bent. And so cryptographic verification really has to demonstrate how and why something is fake to the general public. Otherwise it is just a big 'trust me bro.'

[–] jabjoe@feddit.uk 2 points 9 months ago

Your right in that cryptographic verification only can prove someone signed the video. But that will mean nutters sharing "BBC videos", that don't have the BBC signature can basically be dismissed straight off. We are already in a soup of miss information, so sourcing being cryptographically provable is a step forward. If you trust those sources or not is another matter, but at least your know if it's the true source or not. If a source abuse trust it has, it loses trust.