I think the article really makes the point that it doesn’t matter. The videos can LITERALLY have a watermark on them from the AI software, and people just dgaf. The battle is lost before it begins.
As with things like quotes and claims that could always be fake, it’s back to the old journalistic practices of verifying sources with a second source. But that means being ignorant of things that were not being investigated by journalists, which creates a different filter bubble.
it’s back to the old journalistic practices of verifying sources with a second source.
that has as a necessary pre-requirement that people are actually interested enough in an objective truth that they’re willing to pay some journalist to do the research.
is that really the case anymore? I can see it being useful in the 20th century when people were interested in new economic developments and stuff
I think the article really makes the point that it doesn’t matter. The videos can LITERALLY have a watermark on them from the AI software, and people just dgaf. The battle is lost before it begins.
As with things like quotes and claims that could always be fake, it’s back to the old journalistic practices of verifying sources with a second source. But that means being ignorant of things that were not being investigated by journalists, which creates a different filter bubble.
that has as a necessary pre-requirement that people are actually interested enough in an objective truth that they’re willing to pay some journalist to do the research.
is that really the case anymore? I can see it being useful in the 20th century when people were interested in new economic developments and stuff