Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes a combination of national and local articles Explanation Every day online and in print.Click to contribute here.
•••
“The Crown” recently completed its run and reign on Netflix. But if a new episode were to be produced, it would be about this week’s royal photo scandal.
However, it remains to be seen how this episode will end. That’s because a grinning Photoshopped image of the Duchess Kate and her three children, released in an attempt to quell the controversy surrounding her hospitalization, has caused even more controversy.
John Watkins, an English professor at the University of Minnesota, said modern monarchies are rife with “conflicts between public and private life.” It is “a public institution that is truly inseparable from the private lives of the individuals who hold that position.”
There is a growing call for transparency into these private lives, no doubt driven by today’s media environment, including the interest in The Crown. That’s expensive, but “the alternative is Victorian mannequins,” says Watkins, an expert on British culture and society.These former royals were ‘treated badly – you only see public institutions, not private ones’ [person]. ”
Or, perhaps in the case of Photoshop failure, it’s actually neither.
Speculation about the incident, in which the princess has admitted responsibility, is rampant online. Like most royal rumors, it’s probably going to recede. But it points to a deeper trust problem that is likely to grow exponentially in the era of rising artificial intelligence.
Andy Carvin, managing editor of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, said: “There’s a lot of debate about how generated AI images will change the game when it comes to propaganda, politics, entertainment, etc. It’s endless,” he said. “All particular areas of culture are already being affected by this fundamental question: “We are faced with the fact that we are increasingly unable to distinguish between what is real and what is synthetic.” How should I deal with it?”
“What I find interesting about the current situation is that we’re not talking about images that are completely produced by an AI generator,” Kerbin said. “It was a photo that someone had taken and edited using common editing and correction tools that come standard on almost every device with a lens.”
These images, made from whole cloth, have the potential to shake up societies, and perhaps even democracies.
“All of this will become even more complicated. The reason many people are worried about the impact of generated images is that in a situation of instability, exacerbating existing partisan divisions, fear, hatred, etc. Because the image can spread quickly, it could be,” Kerbin said. “And every social media platform has its own way of compressing images for quick sharing on the network, so even if a generative AI company installs some form of watermark on an image, it won’t. There is currently no guarantee that it will be installed by the time the watermark is completed. Once disseminated through social media, the watermark will no longer be detectable.”
More meaningfully, does it even matter?
“My biggest concern is that even if we had the ability to instantly tell whether an image is real, fake, or something in between, would people care anymore?” Carbin said. He asked the question rhetorically and replied: “Particularly the part of the population that prioritizes partisanship and winning over other values like civil debate and civic engagement? Because if you’re someone who wants your side to win, you have to “Because you’re not.” “Even if you’re a politician trying to get your base to eat red meat, the source doesn’t determine whether the image goes viral. It’s about people’s fears. It’s about how you feed into it.”
Carvin likened this to fact-checking. Fact-checking is becoming increasingly sophisticated, but increasingly Sisyphus-like.
“We can have the best fact-checkers in the world, checking things and debunking things in real-time, but that doesn’t stop the spread of misinformation and intentional disinformation. Because there is too much demand for this material.” Keep it and weaponize it. ”
The FBI is concerned that this will happen not only in future politics, but also in this year’s elections.
“The United States has faced threats of foreign influence in the past,” FBI Director Christopher Wray told the National Security Council last week. “But in this election cycle, America will face more adversaries moving at a faster pace and enabled by new technology.”
And this is not just an election year in America, but around the world, with many countries already facing attempts at foreign interference by Russia and other rogue states and non-state actors.
Even without artificial intelligence, disinformation and misinformation are already deadly in some societies, Kerbin said, drawing on his insightful observations from on-the-ground reporting of the Arab Spring. , Mr. Kerbin has earned the nickname “The Man Who Tweets the Revolution.” In India, for example, individuals have been lynched over false child abduction rumors spread on WhatsApp, Carvin said.
“There’s nothing to prevent the information that’s already out there from causing further moral panic,” Carvin said. “So what happens when you can dream up almost anything? And can you custom design images for any goal to get people excited?”
When it comes to the controversy over royal photos, the British and even American public is already bubbling over the doctored images and what they reveal or are trying to cover up. Mr. Watkins believes that it is not only the people but also the popular press that have “conflicting demands.” He said news organizations “demand transparency and at the same time be ruthless when it comes to human weaknesses.”
That dynamic may actually be arousing intense interest. But as loyal subjects of “The Crown” (Nielsen calls them viewers) know, pressure from the press only intensifies, and it’s hard to imagine whether the princess, or the royal press guard, is anticipating the reaction. It’s surprising that there wasn’t.
But compared to previous clouds over Kensington Palace, and clouds that may come from artificial intelligence, this storm will likely pass.
“In a sense,” Carvin concluded, “it’s true.” [photo] Because, he added ominously, “there are many other inherently dangerous ways in which misinformation and disinformation can spread, cause violence, and actually kill people.”
Sure, “The Crown” may be over, but The Crown will live on. But democracies that have replaced monarchies and other inferior forms of government will increasingly be challenged by AI.
