A.I Created images and video

[TeeDee]

Totally agree

I thought I had better redact something out of courtesy but now that I'm being told NASA are unable ' because the technology to do so was lost ' to send a mission back to the moon and land , ( careless of them - need a better filing system )

I'm thinking my redaction maybe was too hasty.

 

[TeeDee]

Same as we cannot build a pyramid or a gothic cathedral.

Still a work in progress.


I think we could rebuild anything if we REALLY wanted to - as long as we with throw enough , Labour ( Could be manpower or Robot now I guess ) , Money/Energy( Same thing ? ) and validity.( By Validity I mean for Pyramids and Cathedrals the validation was aligned to Religious belief )

I'm still in favour for a Space Elevator.
(Which if we could extend it all the way to the Moon like the Chunnel would solve NASA's little faux pas. )

 

[Chris]

I thought I had better redact something out of courtesy but now that I'm being told NASA are unable ' because the technology to do so was lost ' to send a mission back to the moon and land , ( careless of them - need a better filing system )

I'm thinking my redaction maybe was too hasty.

Have they checked down the back of the sofa, I wonder? That's where I always lose things.

 

[TeeDee]

Have they checked down the back of the sofa, I wonder? That's where I always lose things.

Lots of things go missing around Area 51 apparently.
Never seen anything come out of that.
Huge cluttered warehouse no doubt.

 

[Pattree]

I once got into a discussion with a stone mason doing repairs to Worcester cathedral. I commented that the old skills haven’t disappeared at all.
His response was: They might have. We’re better today than they were. We have better tools and a better understanding of stone. We also have far more choice from the quarries than the old guys did. He showed me a piece of a stone mullion that he was replacing. “We would never have used that stone.”

I’m pretty sure that 2 - 500 years after the apocalypse, we would be able to build a Westminster Abby and an aircraft. We have a fundamental advantage over the innovators - we already know it can be done.

I’m not sure what contribution artificial intelligence might make to such a venture. Will it ever be able to assess ground for planting or stone fire masonry work. It could generate images of what previously existed I suppose but worlds wet believe it?

Everything would depend on how quickly we could establish the degree of cooperation required for a particular project.

 

[Pattree]

Sorry for double post but:

Are we entering the age of Trump truth. Have we yet got sufficiently good at artificially generated images that we have a reasonable defence against any visual or audio evidence against us -

“It’s all fake and fraudulent!”

 

[Chris]

Sorry for double post but:

Are we entering the age of Trump truth. Have we yet got sufficiently good at artificially generated images that we have a reasonable defence against any visual or audio evidence against us -

“It’s all fake and fraudulent!”

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

 

[Pattree]

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

Not relevant in this case @Chris I am not talking about personal experience. *

I am referring to imagery presented after an event as evidence that it happened.

It’s a two (at least) edged sword. How soon before I can claim that any photo or audio journalism is fake.

I rate so called revenge porn as one of the worst offences against a fellow human being. Does the current level of artificial intelligence imagery offer a way of defending ourselves against such an assault.

* However:
Anna Fry has done a wonderful blog on cognitive hallucination.
I have a highly illuminating exercise on the interpretation of evidence. Fortunately I’m too old for jury service but that exercise made me question the value of witness statements and the subsequent jury process.

 

[TeeDee]

Not relevant in this case @Chris I am not talking about personal experience. *

I am referring to imagery presented after an event as evidence that it happened.

It’s a two (at least) edged sword. How soon can I claim that any photo or audio journalism is fake.

I rate so called revenge porn as one of the worst offences against a fellow human being. Does the current level of artificial intelligence offer a way of defending ourselves against such an assault.

* However:
Anna Fry has done a wonderful blog on cognitive hallucination.
I have a highly illuminating exercise on the interpretation of evidence. Fortunately I’m too old for jury service but that exercise made me question the value of witness statements and the subsequent jury process.

Probably best to not attach a named individual to it then - as that seems to infer ownership or bias.

Cant we agree that intentional manipulation of any report or imagery/video is a danger to all sides.

 

[TeeDee]

I once got into a discussion with a stone mason doing repairs to Worcester cathedral. I commented that the old skills haven’t disappeared at all.
< snip >

Seems they have for NASA.
At least that's what I heard.

 

[Chris]

Not relevant in this case @Chris I am not talking about personal experience. *

I am referring to imagery presented after an event as evidence that it happened.

It’s a two (at least) edged sword. How soon before I can claim that any photo or audio journalism is fake.

I rate so called revenge porn as one of the worst offences against a fellow human being. Does the current level of artificial intelligence imagery offer a way of defending ourselves against such an assault.

* However:
Anna Fry has done a wonderful blog on cognitive hallucination.
I have a highly illuminating exercise on the interpretation of evidence. Fortunately I’m too old for jury service but that exercise made me question the value of witness statements and the subsequent jury process.

I think it is relevant, I’m not sure why you think it isn’t?

The insidious nature of AI generated video content to form narratives is relevant to trials, politics, police investigations, even day to day life. If we are forced to the position where we are made to feel that we cannot trust our own eyes (like with fake AI content) then we are in a really bad place. Tell me that isn’t a convenient tool when it comes to the political manipulation of populations.

 

[Chris]

As a slight aside, you’re the second person this week to recommend Hannah Fry to me @Pattree - will have to have a watch/listen to some of her stuff.

 

[Pattree]

Probably best to not attach a named individual to it then - as that seems to infer ownership or bias.

I see what you are getting at.
I’ve Included the reference in my post above in order to clarify exactly what I don’t think is relevant.

Artificially generated imagery isn’t about denying the evidence of your own ears and eyes.

I am referring to the total deniability of any audio or video report of an event.

Edited to add:
The political scenario of total denial is already here. We’ve just seen video of a burning aircraft carrier that we are also told , wasn’t burning.

Society is going to have to deal with it very very soon.

I still trust my own eyes and ears as far as I know their limits

 

[HillBill]

Alien technology!

No I jest. We probably do still have the technological capability to send a human to the moon if we wanted but there are likely two things currently missing preventing us from doing so:

1. The motivation to sent a human there (it's much easier and cheaper to send a robot).
2. A financial or strategic military incentive to make us want to send a human there.

Well, that's the thing. Apparently we currently can't send people through the Van Allen Belts... but we could in 69... Supposedly the radiation shielding we had back then, was far superior to what we have now... which again, makes no real sense. Sure, you could argue it was during the cold war, when Nuclear war was a major concern... but we still have nukes, so why would radiation protection have been 'lost'?

Old vid here, lots of clips of interviews with NASA etc... It's possible some are taken out of context... I don't know, i wasn't born back then. One thing to note, is that Stanley Kubrick came out just before he died, and said he filmed all of the moon landing stuff in 69.
For some reason i can't post the link....But i can post the search

Loading…

www.youtube.com

 

[HillBill]

Of course we can still put people on the moon if we wanted to. The point is we don’t need to because we have both advanced robotics, and no need to do so as it isn’t a current priority for anyone. Main effort is towards Mars and beyond now.

I'm not sure that's true Chris. Nasa themselves say they cant.

 

[Chris]

Apparently we currently can't send people through the Van Allen Belts.

Yes, we can.

Kubrik came out and said he filmed all of the moon landing stuff in 69.

No, he didn't.

You're regurgitating well disproven moon landing conspiracy twaddle.

 

[Chris]

I'm not sure that's true Chris. Nasa themselves say they cant.

Citation please.

 

[HillBill]

Yes, we can.



No, he didn't.

You're regurgitating well disproven moon landing conspiracy twaddle.

I watched the interview at the time. He did say that

 

[Chris]

I watched the interview at the time. He did say that

No, he didn't. You're probably referring to Shooting Stanley Kubrick by T Patrick Murray which is a fake.

20 Myths and Facts About the Moon Landing

Apparently some people think it was all a Stanley Kubrick film? Talk about a masterpiece!

www.snopes.com

Edit: See also https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...discusses-staging-moon-landing-idUSL1N37S29A/

 

[bobnewboy]

AIUI, we can and will go back to the moon with manned flight. That’s what the SLS project is all about. However, rather than try to recreate the legendary Saturn V Rocketdyne F1 engines, the decision was made by NASA to use new technology for design, build and testing using solid rocket boosters. It is apparently true that a lot of the engineering knowledge regarding the F1 engines was lost over time because in the ‘60s the engines were effectively hand built by small teams of expert engineers, and much of that specialised info was only kept in personal notes or people’s heads. Most of those people have passed on and taken that knowledge with them. I heard about this via Scott Manley’s YouTube channel, and from other reading like Neil Armstrong’s blog:

Why Can't we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 Engine?

Neil Armstrong The Moon Missions Channel. Apollo 11 moon landing with rare photos of Neil Armstrong and the crew. Welcome in!

neilarmstrongthemoonmissionschannel.blogspot.com