PANDORA'S BOX

FAKE OR REAL?

IS GEN-AI TURNING "TRUTH" ON ITS HEAD?

“But will a machine ever know what it feels like to miss something? 

Or what is it like to create something beautiful out of a moment of sorrow? 

Creativity does not arise from calculation but from experience, pain, love, and hope."

– attributed to Keanu Reeves, generated by AI

There they were, Elon Musk and Keanu Reeves, having a thought provoking debate about AI. It looked real. It sounded real. It felt real. And it went viral. 

Minor detail: It was all fake. All of it. Snopes, a fact checking site, has confirmed that it was completely fake.

Elon and Keanu were AI-generated avatars, with computer generated (real sounding!) voices, scripted by a ghost somewhere in the AI universe. Oops!

And yet, people are voicing an opinion! In an era where tech is turning the truth on its head, and verification is the name of the game, Keanu’s point of view speaks of a fundamental reality within each human being – except it was “voiced” by an AI generated fake. One that got people to sit up and take notice.

****

Isn’t it ironic… when AI writes about AI? 

It’s almost as if it was self-introspecting, and when artificial intelligence self-introspects, well… it’s not that surprising that it becomes “fake news,” right? But that’s artificial intelligence for you. A bit of an oxymoron. Makes it (almost) human!

The recent “debate” between Elon Musk and Keanu Reeves is the perfect case in point. It didn’t really happen. It was a beautifully crafted piece of fake news, generated by a tech-geek, using AI.

But could it have actually happened? Maybe not the EXACT conversation that took place between the two, but there’s certainly enough out there about both Elon’s point of view and Keanu’s. AI only took “inspiration” from what was already out there, wove it together into a narrative, and made it seem so believable, that thousands of viewers bought into it.

Well, hello Pandora! We just unlocked the box and suddenly we’re now seeing a whole gamut of issues permeating into the environment, just enough stuff to wrap yourself around and mess (just a little bit) with your headspace.

Does video tell a single truth – or just a thousand lies?

How do we know what’s real… and what’s fake?

Is real and fake a matter of public or personal perception?

Is seeing, believing… anymore?

Can I believe anything anymore?

(To be fair, even Pandora had a bit of an existential crisis, so we won’t blame you if you do.)

Pause… rewind… and let’s examine the matter critically. If this were to happen, who’s side would you be on? Elon’s – AI is going to soon take over the creative process? Or Keanu’s – Creativity is a fundamental expression of human emotion?

And if I had to be really brutal, I guess the bigger question would be: are we serving AI… or is AI serving us? That’s definitely a squirm-worthy point to ponder. And that’s where my blockchain bitch a.k.a. BB, kicks in and says BLOCK that thought, sweetheart, because I’m not about to let that happen. 

Me: Okay then… how are you going to stem the tide, BB?

BB: Because if you had an iota of sense and discernment, you’d use me to vet the source of the info.

Me: But it’s in the mainstream news!

BB: And how much of the “mainstream news” is actual fact?

Me: Ouch, BB. Are you trying to say that we can’t trust BBC anymore?

BB: You can’t trust anyone out there completely. Traceability is the key.

Me: But how do we do that?

BB: By verifying its back-trail on a blockchain, of course.

Me: Okay… so even if I did trace it back to the source and found out it was not really BBC, how would I know it didn’t actually happen?

BB: Because you’d be able to trace it’s back-trail to its actual source? AI is artificial intelligence – it’s not authentically creative. So, it can’t invent something authentic, it can only reinvent what’s already out there. 

Me: So, are you saying that it would skew a piece of actual news to suit a particular point of view? 

BB: Sure, but hey, doesn’t Fox do that too?

Me: Ok ok… so what’s your point, BB?

BB: I’m just saying that news is shaped by public perception. Think of it like a populist vote. AI leans into it and comes up with an approximation of what’s already out there. The quality of the output depends on the quality of the input, and the input is very homogenous. 

Me: Is there a way we can address that?

BB: Sure. Use me. The beauty of blockchain is that it’s heterogenous. It’s spread over so many blocks across the planet, garnering diverse datasets with multiple points of view, that it offsets the “narrowness” of AI. 

Me: Are you saying that blockchain is a bigger, better alternative?

BB: It’s not just “big” – it’s broad. It’s widespread. It’s a lot more inclusive. 

Me: What do you mean it’s broad?

BB: Well, look at it this way. You know DeepMind? That’s Google’s version of AGI – Artificial Generative Intelligence. Well, it can only go deeper into the dataset that its fed. It can’t actually amalgamate different points of view. 

Me: And blockchain can?

BB: Yes! It does it already. That’s exactly what it is – a food chain.  Just like in nature. A healthy food chain is always bio-diverse. A healthy block-chain is a creator’s universe.

Me: But hey, BB, AI is a creator’s universe too! You can’t deny that.

BB: AI can regenerate, it can’t create. It’s great for hackers, not for originators. It can help creators, but it doesn’t protect them. 

Me: So, what are you suggesting, BB?

BB: That if you’re a creator, you’d be smarter to put your work on a blockchain. That way it’s time stamped forever. Even if someone does try to steal it or plagiarise it, they won’t get very far because it’s mirrored on every block in the chain.

Me: Mirror, mirror on the wall?

BB: Hahaha, no – that’s very self-absorbed, more AI’s style. I like to think of it as “we’re all in it together…” 

Me: Thanks, BB. That’s given me a lot to ponder.

BB: Don’t thank me yet until you put your creative work up on that blockchain. Otherwise, AI might eat you alive.

Me: Isn’t that exactly what that guy, Demis Hassebis, was saying the other day? He says we need a regulatory body like CERN to oversee AGI! He says we need to teach AI morals like we would raise a child! 

BB: Hahaha, well, that would depend on the morals of the people doing the policing and the teaching, wouldn’t it? And that’s the problem with human intervention. 

Me: But do you think that we should be teaching AI right from wrong?

BB: No, because the perception of right and wrong changes with time and context. The problem is never the tech, but the intentions of the human beings that interface with it. I mean, it’s like all those regulators who complain about cryptocurrency being used to finance the grey market. But what about the US Dollar that’s been greasing the wheels (and palms) for years? 

Me: Well, this could present a real problem down the line, don’t you think? Or what do you think?

BB: What you really need is a Blockchain Bitch to crack the whip. Humans need to untangle themselves out of the administrative b.s. and free themselves up for what they do best – which is create. Blockchain is here to handle the nitty-gritty and take care of the rest.

Me: Wow, that’s a big thought to wrap my head around. But thanks, BB. You’ve given me a lot to ponder.

BB: Don’t thank me yet, until you’ve put your creative work on a blockchain. Otherwise, AI might copy it and attribute it to someone else.