Maybe the NYT’s headline writers’ eyes weren’t that great to begin with?

The tech could represent the end of visual fact — the idea that video could serve as an objective record of reality — as we know it.

We already declared that with the advent of photoshop. I don’t want to downplay the possibility of serious harm being a result of misinformation carried through this medium. People can be dumb. I do want to say the sky isn’t falling. As the slop tsunami hits us we are not required to stand still, throw our hands in the air, and take it. We will develop tools and sensibilities that will help us not to get duped by model mud. We will find ways and institutions to sieve for the nuggets of human content. Not all at once but we will get there.

This is fear mongering masquerading as balanced reporting. And it doesn’t even touch on the precarious financial situations the whole so-called AI bubble economy is in.

Videos are now basically have the same weights as words, no longer a “smoking gun”. Videos basically become like eyewitness testimony, well… its slightly better as it protect against misremembering or people with inadequate lexicon and unable to clearly articulate what they saw. The process wil become: get the witness to testify they had posession of the camera, was recording at the time of incident, and they believe the video being presented in court is genuine and have not been altered, then its basically a video version of their eyewitness testimony. The credibility of the video is now tied to the witness/camera-person’s own credibility, and should not be evaluated as an independent evidence, but the jury should treat the video as the witnese’s own words, meaning, they should factor in the possibility the witness faked it.

A video you see on the internet is now just as good as just a bunch of text, both equally unreliable.

We live in a post-truth world now.