This might need to be the way forward.

Internet was fun, that was a really sick 30 years, but GG.

But then you are just training and generating music with AI... (Acoustic Instruments)

Usually when people share a post, it's because the post evoked a reaction, and they want to share that with someone. Making the conversation about the provenance of the post truncates the exchange in an unsatisfying way. For a news story, propaganda, or the like, the source is important. For funny dog videos? Maybe the quality of the exchange is more important. A nice middle ground would be to react as if it were true, and then point out it's probably AI. Videos are easier to spot, but the difference between an image that's obviously AI and one that looks real is like 10 min of work in Photoshop. So we're often better off saving our faculties of discernment for the stuff that matters.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking as well, with the comparison to hand drawn animation. Honestly, I'm not sure, but I expect that would not hit quite the same way. Claymation...maybe the same, actually. It might also be just no glasses scrolling and quick reactions without discernment.

I've explained how to recognize AI videos, and she knows how to ID most (I hope), and I have noticed that she shows me fewer AI clips now. Not none, but fewer. I think she knows I don't like them, and doesn't want me too be the killjoy.

I even made a clip in Sora of our cat doing stuff, as an olive branch. I think that sort of made the point you were making about the friend getting an award.

Oh man I've noticed zero difference. Religion, a thousand times religion.

One of the things that makes a staged video less troubling is that the staging itself always comes with tells. Camera angles, cuts, framing, and of course actual staging.

AI videos can have that too, but they aren't the inherent tells. AI tells are unnatural: bodies that shift in subtle ways, objects warped or merging outside the center of frame. It's not stuff that you look for because it's not stuff that actually happens in nature, or even in human constructed CGI all that often. But it does add up to a sense of uncanny valley.

"I'll take people shitting into my mouth over dogs. At least it's real humans doing it."

When you sit down to watch a movie, you know it isn't real. When you watch media coverage of current events, you should not have to guess if it is or isn't.

If all we were seeing is the prompt used to generate the video, then there wouldn't be a problem. Human-written fiction is generally valuable.
Instead we're getting single sentences masquerading as "a picture worth a 1000 words", or worse with video. Only 1% of that is actually the valuable part (the prompt), the rest is filler words and hallucinated slop.
A video or picture of reality is inherently more informative than any AI generation.

I have the exact same problem with AI-generated articles. They're nearly empty of any actual information, and it completely wastes your time to filter through it and find the actual point. Just like the backstory that gets put before every online food recipe; it's useless fluff.

It's kind of a shame you're getting down voted for this. It's a perfectly reasonable perspective, and makes sense.

I feel like the photorealism is what makes it bad. When you notice it's fake you feel lied to. If it's a cartoon, or blatantly cartoonish, it doesn't.

"This [specie of animal] hid in the corner every day for [X] [months/years] until one day THIS happened! (wait for it)"

Just like a lot of animal rescue videos. Horrible, heartbreaking animal abuse, staged to look like an act of heroism.

I used to watch those videos on YT a lot, until I suddenly pieced it together, that two cats had the very same markings, and figured out what their scam was, I felt so disgusted I ended up making a massive rant and telling every person I knew for months.

next you'll tell me people don't always tell the truth on the internet or to not always believe what you read in the newspaper

It’s still a fantasy though. People aren’t in control of their phones/feeds.

Heck, we can’t even get the world to support JPEG-XL or HEIF or anything, much less take RAW pictures.

And Twitter has convinced me there is absolutely no line these services can cross to get people to quit.

And what a minuscule plateau it reached.

It's certainly still improving in many areas - like coding assist, for sure. I think video generation is still improving but it takes a shit ton of resources, so it's a bit slower. Maybe image generation has plateaued, but that could certainly be temporary. There are lots of more niche applications that are still progressing at a slower pace like I just read an article on using image processing AI in fertility clinics to better predict viability of embryos for implantation. Cool stuff that could actually improve people's lives.

Yeah, because it's kind of harder to get better than photorealistic.

The information that there are happy dogs out there doing happy dog things isn't wrong tho, regardless of how many images of happy dogs are real or fake.

If someone tells me a entertaining story that connects with me emotionally, it's not so much important if the story is true per se, it's important that it's told well. The storyteller might have invented the whole thing or based it on something similar and modified/exaggerated it, but that doesn't take away from the story. If i tell myself a story it wouldn't be satisfying either (if i'm not worldbuilding or an author, where the satisfaction has other sources).

It's an interesting thought and would explain why people react so intensely. I for my part was very quickly picking up on the fakeness of facebook - when i was riled up during the arabian spring in Libya, i realized that i get easily emotionally manipulated by the served content, which made me quit.

Nowadays i know much better how to verify information that's important to me; a dogs picture licking a cat which makes her purr will always emotionally positive for me, because a) it doesn't matter outside of my satisfaction, just like the well told story, and b) i can't check it for authenticity either way, so i do not care about authenticity.

That's an age-old problem, just scaled up. There has always been misinformation in social media (and before that in every bar). In the US it's especially bad, mostly because the GOP profits directly from misinfo and has done as much damage as possible to the education system to ensure it stays that way. That's also the reason there wont be any legislation regarding labeling of AI content (which is preferrable, but not enforceable even today) coming from your continent in the next few decades, sorry :-(

That might still be a "good" thing. More people than before become aware that what they see in social media is not reality, but entertainment that might or might not be real. It could lead to a general rejection of the notion that SM shows the truth.

But all in all it is still of no importance if it's imagery to give cozy feelings because of cute animals like in the meme. An entertaining story does not have to be true to be entertaining, and in the same vein a cute pet image doesn't have to depict a real pet to be cute.

By actively selecting these videos, watching them, sometimes multiple times through, going back to them to show them to me "You've got to see this video I saw" god hate fucking dammit, she's driving revenue toward their uploaders, which is causing them to pave over the entire continent of North America with data centers that are destroying the concept of truth itself and murdering the environment.