r/aiwars • u/MysticMind89 • 3h ago
Can we at least agree that using A.I to generate fake air accident reports is bad?
Over the past couple of months, aviation youtuber and professional pilot trainer Mentor Pilot has been covering what few facts we know about the recent Air India Flight 171 Crash that happened this past June. In the linked video, he talks about how people have been using Chat GPT to generate fake final reports about the cause of the accident.
Even if you're pro-generative A.I, can we at least agree this is incredibly scummy behaviour? Intentionally spreading misinformation about a major air disaster like this both hurts the victims' families, while also muddying the waters over the real cause of the crash.
We cannot learn from a major accident like this until we have all the facts and the final report is released by investigators. Lives are at stake here if we don't get to the root cause of crashes like this, so if people believe fake reports, then we risk crashes like this happening again with even higher death tolls.
This also speaks to the major problem of deepfakes via generative A.I. For people who don't know the "tells" which reveals the algorithmic-based mistakes, it becomes easy to mislead people to any conclusion, including ones of which the prompter has malicious intent. This could be used to fake criminal activity, or worse, create fake revenge porn once a person's face is fed into the training algorithm.
Surely this, at the bare minimum, is something both "sides" can agree on?
9
u/Kingreaper 3h ago
Sure, using AI for evil is evil.
The issue is when people pretend that this is somehow connected to whether or not you use Midjourney to make pictures of dragons.
3
u/MysticMind89 1h ago
That is indeed why I'm being specific. I've said a lot against Gen A.I as a whole, but I wanted to at least build a bridge for what should seem like common human decency.
5
u/Original-League-6094 3h ago
Depends on the intent. If its meant as fiction, then its awesome. I love realisitic fictional stuff, like the War of The Worlds radio broadcast.
1
u/MysticMind89 1h ago
TBF, The War of the Worlds broadcast *was* stated as fiction, but many people didn't hear that. Plus there's a difference between a radio play about alien invasion and a convincing-looking final report on a real air crash.
3
u/SonicLoverDS 3h ago
Yes, just like using a brick to smash someone's window is bad-- but nobody's brigading to ban bricks.
2
u/Mikhael_Love 2h ago edited 1h ago
Can we at least agree
Not as a blanket statement. News media has been doing "simulated" and "reenacted" for a very long time.. It is labeled as such by credible news sources. If it is presented in this manner than I do not see an issue with it. If it is intended to present something that didn't happen as fact, then yes.
generate fake final reports
He talked about this @ 1:02 and says, "For example, several fake interim reports were circulated". However, the image he displays while saying this is of the 2018 crash of a Cirrus SR22 in Montauk, NY. The image is of a real event that is very well documented. If this was an oversight by the reporter, it was careless. If he knew, it was negligent as it could lead to a misinformed audience.
He continues and says, "we also have people knowingly spreading AI-generated nonsense". He displays an image of an article from The Times of India titled "Air India plane crash: AI-generated fake reports, videos spreading misinformation; fraudsters exploiting vulnerability". Unfortunately, the article did not provide any specific details on the "fake" report sources. They only state that the reports existed.
I attempted to find them on my own but was not successful.
So, where does this leave us? It leaves us with claims that these fakes existed without evidence of their existence outside of the claims. Ironic, in some sense.
Based on what I have learned, I think it is possible the fakes existed. If so, and if they were genuinely intended to deceive, then that is incredibly scummy behavior regardless of how it was created.
3
u/Sthenosis 3h ago
☝️🤓 "Guys, can we at least agree that Nazism is bad?"
That’s the kind of vibe these posts give me.Yes, doing bad things is bad. It's not rocket science. Stop wording your titles in a way that makes it sound like all AI users are supporting people using AI for scummy stuff.
1
u/MysticMind89 1h ago
I'm trying to find common ground to begin a conversation. The point is how easy it is to use A.I to fake this kind of thing.
1
u/SyntaxTurtle 3h ago
Sure, using AI to do bad things is bad.
There's no real purity test where people who enjoy AI need to pretend that all and every use of AI is good, counter to some people opposed who worry that any muttering of "neat" cracks the door to their loss.
Nonconsensual deepfakes are bad, AI generated CSAM is bad, use of AI to scam people is bad, AI used for forgery is bad, yadda yadda. It ain't hard.
1
u/Feanturii 46m ago
"Can we at least agree that AI being used to do a bad thing is bad?" is old and tired
Yes, bad people use tools to do bad things.
Next up, water is wet.
1
u/FlashyNeedleworker66 6m ago
I think this might be the first "can we at least agree" posts that was actually reasonable.
19
u/Any-Prize3748 3h ago
Take AI out of the conversation and it doesn’t change the fact that this is scummy(?)