Do we really want a world where we can't trust anything we see, hear, or read? Where people need to be educated to not trust their senses, the things we use to interpret reality and the world around us.

I feel this kind of hypervigilance will be mentally exhausting, and not being able to trust your primary senses will have untold psychological effects

You can trust what you see and hear around you. You might be able to trust information from a party you trust. You certainly shouldn't trust digital information from unknown entities with unknown agendas.

We're already in a world where "fake news" and "alt-facts" influence our daily lives and political outcomes.

What I see and hear around me is a miniscule fraction of the outside world. To have a shared understanding of reality, of what is happening in my town, my city, my state, my country, my continent, the world, requires much more than what is available in your immediate environment.

In the grand scheme of understanding the world at large, our immediate senses are not particularly valuable. So we _have_ to rely on other streams of information. And the trend is towards more of those streams being digital.

The existence of "fake news" and "alt facts", doesn't mean we should accept a further and dramatic worsening of our ability to have a shared reality. To accept that as an inevitability is defeatist and a kind of learned helplessness.

Have you seen the Adam Curtis documentary "Hypernormalisation"? It deals with some similar themes, but on a much smaller scale (at least it is smaller in the context of current and near future tech)

One absolutely should not trust what you see and hear around you. One cannot trust the opinions of others, one should not trust faith, one can only reliable develop critical analysis and employ secondary considerations to the best of their ability, and then be cautious at every step. Trust and faith are relics of a time now gone, and it is time to realize it, to grow up and see the reality.

I wonder if we’ll eventually see people abandoning the digital reality in favor of real-life, physical interactions wherever possible.

I recently had an issue with my mobile service provider and I was insanely glad when I could interact with a friendly and competent shop clerk (I know I got lucky there) in a brick&mortar instead of a chatbot stuck in a loop.

Yeah I think it's a real possibility that people will disconnect from the digital world. Though I fear the human touch will become a luxury only afforded by the wealthy. If it becomes a point of distinction, people will charge extra for it. While the rest are pleaing with a brainless chat bots

That world is already here. Nothing you can do about it, might as well democratize access to the technology.

No it's not. We are not at the stage where reality is completely indistinguishable from fiction. We are still in the uncanny valley. Nothing is inevitable

Do you think China will stop here?

This is like trying to hide Photoshop from the public. Realistic AI generated videos and adversary-sponsored mass disinformation campaigns are 100% inevitable, even if the US labs stopped working on it today.

So, you might as well open access to it to blunt the effect, and make sure our own labs don't fall behind on the global stage.

That is reality, that is nature. The natural world is filled with camouflaged animals and plants that prey on one another via their camouflage. This is evolution, and those unable to discriminate reality from fiction will be the causalities, as they always have since the dawn of life.

The naturalistic fallacy is weak at best, but this is one of the weirdest deployments of it I've encountered. It's not evolution, it's nothing like it.

If it's kill or be killed, we should do away with medicine right? Only the strong survive. Why are we saving the weak? Sorry but this argument is beyond silly

Deception is a key part of life, and the inability to discriminate fact from fiction is absolutely a key metric of success. Who said "kill or be killed"? Not I. It is survival or not, flourish or not, succeed or not.

But why must the deception take place? Evolution is natural, The development of AI generated videos takes teams of people, years of effort and millions of pounds. Why should those that are more easily deceived be culled? Do you believe that the future of technology is weeding out the weak? Do you believe the future of humanity is the existence of only those that can use the technologies we develop? You might very well find yourself in a position, a long time from now, where you are easily deceived by newer technologies that you are not familiar with.

Deception takes places because deception takes place, because it can. I'm not the gatekeeper of it, I'm just acknowledging it and some of the secondary effects that will occur due to these inevitable technologies. I don't believe the future is anything other than a hope. That hope will require those future individuals to be very discriminating of their surroundings to survive, all surroundings includes all the society information and socialization, because that is filled with misinformation too. All that filled with misinformation right now, and it will just get more sophisticated. That's what I'm saying.

I can't disagree with you there. It's a shame I can't. The future is a scary place to be.

Maybe people should have some of those psychological effects.

Maybe operation Timber Sycamore, that bears fruit in Syria right now wouldn't happen, if the population was less trusting of the shit they see on tv.

We have evolved to trust our senses as roughly representative of reality. I'm not convinced we are able to adapt to that kind of rapid shift.

I have not heard of Timber Sycamore until this comment. A quick look at Wikipedia I'm struggling to see the relevance here. Can you elaborate?

Sure. No amount of perception will let you see the financing of Al-Quida or Al-Nusra soldiers. You can't perceive your way out of your blindness. You need to reflect.

Of all the different sci-fi futures I’ve encountered, I never thought we’d end up in the Phillip k Dick one.

It will also reinforce whatever bias we have already. When facing ambiguous or unknowable situations our first reaction is to go with "common sense" or "trusting our gut".

"Uh, Is that video of [insert your least favourite politician here] taking a bribe real or not? Well, I'm going to trust my instincts here..."

What would motivate "big tech" to warn people about their own products, if not regulations?

Don't forget text. You can't trust text either.

And no big tech company would run the ads you're suggesting, because they only make money when people use the systems that deliver the untrustworthy content.