top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 286 points 10 months ago* (43 children)

A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.

What the actual fuck? You couldn't spare someone to just go look at the fucking thing rather than asking ChatGPT to spin you a tale? What are we even doing here, BBC?

A photo taken by a BBC North West Tonight reporter showed the bridge is undamaged

So they did. Why are we talking about ChatGPT then? You could just leave that part out. It's useless. Obviously a fake photo has been manipulated. Why bother asking?

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 98 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    I tried the image of this real actual road collapse: https://www.tv2.no/nyheter/innenriks/60-mennesker-isolert-etter-veiras/12875776

    I told ChatGPT it was fake and asked it to explain why. It assured me I was a special boy asking valid questions and helpfully made up some claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • load more comments (17 replies)
  • [–] 53 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I am guessing the reporter wanted to remind people tools exist for this, however the reporter isn't tech savvy enough to realize ChatGPT isn't one of them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 10 months ago*

    afaik, there actually aren't any reliable tools for this.

    the highest accuracy rate I've seen reported for "AI detectors" is somewhere around 60%; barely better than a random guess...

    edit: i think that way for text/LLM, to be fair.

    kinda doubt images are much better though...happy to hear otherwise, if there are better ones!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago

    My best guess is SEO. Journalism that mentions ChatGPT gets more hits. It might be they did use a specialist or specialized software and the editor was like "Say it was ChatGPT, otherwise people get confused, and we get more views. No one's going to fact check whether or not someone used ChatGPT."

    That's just my wild, somewhat informed speculation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    Devils advocate, AI might be an agent that detects tapering with a NLP frontend.

    Not all AI is LLMs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago* (11 children)

    A "chatbot" is not a specialized AI.

    (I feel like maybe I need to put this boilerplate in every comment about AI, but I'd hate that.) I'm not against AI or even chatbots. They have their uses. This is not using them appropriately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago* (10 children)

    A chatbot can be the user facing side of a specialized agent.

    That's actually how original change bots were. Siri didn't know how to get the weather, it was able to classify the question as a weather question, parse time and location and which APIs to call on those cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago* (9 children)

    Okay I get you're playing devil's advocate here, but set that aside for a moment. Is it more likely that BBC has a specialized chatbot that orchestrates expert APIs including for analyzing photos, or that the reporter asked ChatGPT? Even in the unlikely event I'm wrong, what is the message to the audience? That ChatGPT can investigate just as well as BBC. Which may well be the case, but it oughtn't be.

    My second point still stands. If you sent someone to look at the thing and it's fine, I can tell you the photo is fake or manipulated without even looking at the damn thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 89 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.

    WTF?

    Doesn't the fucking BBC have at least 1 or 2 experts for spotting fakes? RAN THROUGH AN AI CHATBOT?? SERIOUSLY??

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago

    People need to get that with the proliferation of AI the only way to build credibility is not by using it for trust but to go the exact opposite way: Grab your shoes and go places. Make notes. Take images.

    As AI permeates the digital space - a process that is unlikely to be reversed - everything that's human will need to get - figuratively speaking - analogue again.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 76 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    It's a shame to see the journalist trusting an AI chat-bot to verify the trustworthiness of the image instead of asking a specialist. I feel like they should even have an AI detecting specialist in-house since we're moving to having more generative AI material everywhere

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 59 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    It is time to start holding social media sites liable for posting AI deceptions. FB is absolutely rife with them.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago* (8 children)

    Disagree. Without Section 230 (or equivalent laws of their respective jurisdictions) your Fediverse instance would be forced to moderate even harder in fear of legal action. I mean, who even decides what "AI deception" is? your average lemmy.world mod, an unpaid volunteer?

    It's a threat to free speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    I think just the people need to held accountable as while I am no fan of Meta, it is not their responsibility to hold people legally accountable to what they choose to post. What we really need is zero knowledge proof tech to identity a person is real without having to share their personal information but that breaks Meta’s and other free business model so here we are.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 42 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    WTF? Why nothing like this ever happened during Photoshop times? Are people just dumber now?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Because the venn diagram of “people who would maliciously do something like this” and “people with good enough photoshop skills to make it look realistic” were nearly two separate circles. AI has added a third “people with access to AI image generators” circle, and it has a LOT of overlap with the second group simply because it is so large.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 10 months ago

    People who post this stuff without identifying it as fake should be held liable.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I'm surprised to see no one else mention that it only took them an hour and a half to get an inspection done, signed of on and the lines reopened? That seems pretty impressive for something as important as a rail bridge.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago

    For anyone outside the UK, the bridge in the picture is carrying the West Coast Mainline (WCML).

    The UK basically has two major routes between Edinburgh and Glasgow (where most people live in Scotland) and London, the East Coast Mainline and the West Coast Mainline. They also connect several major cities and regions.

    The person who posted this basically claimed that a bridge on one of the UK's busiest intercity rail routes had started to collapse, which is not something you say lightly. It's like saying all of New York's airports had shut down because of three co-incidental sinkholes.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    Wait until this shit starts an actual war.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    It feels like a privilege escalation exploit: at a certain point the authority chain jumped from a random picture provided who knows where/when to a link in the chain that should be reliable enough to blindly trust in this subject.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I dunno, someone just throws this up on social media, and you're the person in the position to say hey, halt the trains, don't you do just that out of an abundance of caution?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    lives are worth more than the dysfunction caused by the delay in services.

    the only thing this did was to weaken the resolution of leadership when a real disaster happens.

    the next time information like this comes forward, be it real or fake, it will cause a delayed reaction which will ultimately cost lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    I mean, even if it isn't true, better to be sure than to have a train derail and kill a bunch of people.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    A BBC journalist ran the image through an AI chatbot which identified key spots that may have been manipulated.

    This is terrifying. Does the BBC not have anyone on the team that understands why this does not, and will never work?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›