Archive
Discover and discuss technology tools
Explore the Tiscuss archive by category or keyword, then jump into conversations around what matters most.
Deepfakes: The Attention Budget Threat and Response Strategies
A framing I keep coming back to: a synthetic image or video can succeed even when almost nobody believes it. Not because it changes minds directly, but because it turns attention into the attacked resource. If a campaign, newsroom, platform, or company has to stop and answer the fake, the fake already got some of what it wanted: - the defenders spend scarce time verifying and explaining - the audience gets forced to process the claim anyway - every debunk risks replaying the artifact - institutions look reactive even when they are correct - the attacker learns which themes reliably pull defenders into the loop So detection is necessary, but not sufficient. The second half of the system is distribution response. A few practical design questions I think matter more than the usual “can we detect it?” debate: - Can we debunk without embedding, quoting, or rewarding the fake? - Can provenance signals move suspicious media into slower lanes instead of binary takedown/leave-up decisions? - Do newsrooms and platforms track attention budget as an operational constraint? - Can response teams separate “this is false” from “this deserves broad amplification”? - Can systems preserve evidence for verification while reducing replay value for the attacker? The failure mode is treating every fake as an information accuracy problem when some of them are closer to denial-of-service attacks on attention. Curious how people here would design the response layer. What should a healthy “quarantine lane” for synthetic media look like without becoming censorship-by-default?
How Do Developers Correct AI LLMs When They Spread Misinformation?
I watched Last Week Tonight's piece on AI chatbots today, and it got me thinking about that old screenshot of a Google search in which Gemini recommends adding "1/8 cup of non-toxic glue" to pizza in order to make the cheese better stick to the slice. When something like this goes viral, I have to assume (though I could be wrong) that an employee at Google specifically goes out of their way to address that topic in particular. The image is a meme, of course, but I imagine Google wouldn't be keen to leave themselves open to liability if their LLM recommends that users consume glue. Does the developer "talk" to the LLM to correct it about that specific case? Do they compile specific information about (e.g.) pizza construction techniques and feed it that data to bring it to the forefront? Do their actions correct only the case in question, or do they make changes to the LLM that affects its accuracy more broadly (e.g. "teaching" the LLM to recognize that some Reddit comments are jokes)? On a more heavy note, the LWT piece includes several stories of chatbots encouraging users to self-harm. How does the process differ when developers are trying to prevent an LLM from giving that sort of response?