Vlog 2 - Assessment 2 - S00385995
Deepfakes
As we've moved forward, the pace in which artificial intelligence has evolved in recent years has been heavily predicted, yet staggeringly surprising. In this progress, it has opened up brand new avenues that invite social aspects that couldn't have been reached in the past. So much so, it is closing the border between what is real and embodied, with what is digital hallucination and disembodiment.
We must be prepared in order to safeguard our perceptions from being swept up and integrated into a false sense of reality within the digital age. Deepfakes are a prime example:
Deepfakes are a digital reconfiguration of a person's face or body into that of someone/something else. The main avenue that we wrestle with today, regarding deepfakes, are its malicious uses to deceive, humiliate or make fun of the person targeted - meaning it can extend beyond one's ignorance of its falseness. There can be deviating consequences for anyone with a prevalent online presence.
To look at the question of whether it impacts or affects me is primarily in the consumption of content rather its potentiality for me to fall victim to it at this stage - especially in its rapidly increasing ease, cheapness, and speed of creation. The unrestricted opening in subjecting people to being deepfaked using videos of them on, say, TikTok and other social media platforms, will most likely happen due to the target being publicly popular people, they encounter a person with dark triad personality traits, or high school degeneracy. What I need to worry about is being able to spot deepfakes so that I am not deceived or influenced counterproductively away from what is ideal.
CSIRO - Spotting Deepfakes
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) - who was formed in 1916 and have been publishing for over 50 years - is said to have a global reputation for their quality and excellence in their peer-reviewed journals.
The article looking at deepfakes, published by CSIRO, was written by Madeline Clarke, who was - at the time - a communications advisor in technology and science there. Here she has collaborated in communicating the research of Sharif Abuadbba, PHD, Kristen Moore, PHD, and Shahroz Tariq, PHD to create this specific article.
The article on deepfakes was made in early February 2024, indicating its appropriate timeliness to the topic at hand. However, it is an issue that is quickly evolving and requires an evolving protection against this problem.
I chose this website, regarding deepfake AI, due to the list of achievements that the CSIRO has made which shows a level of competency their institution has acquired - which of course is always subject to change. Upon looking at the author of the article and skimming over their education and experiences - including those with expertise in AI that she had collaborated with in relaying this information - it gave me further confidence that this was a reliable source. The article itself paints the landscape well, shows data, and offers knowledgeable and educated advice as to help increase awareness to protect yourself from deepfakes.
Analysis
To compare this source with another - this article discussing deepfakes is published from the Australian Government - eSaftey Commissioner. It seems apparent that they correlate in information and approach in protecting yourself online against deepfakes. However, there is much more information and support you can find on this website. They even prompt you to contact them to get help removing media from the internet if you've fallen victim to being targeted.
With both websites showing indicators of being good sources and relaying information that appears reasonable in their approach with the issue of deepfakes, I am confident that the general perspective is true.
CRAAP Checklist
To gauge this evaluation in more detail, I'll use a CRAAP checklist to go through different aspects about the CSIRO article. The reasoning for choosing this test is because I've been most familiar with it. Although I am still learning with this method and yet to properly try others, being adapted to this approach should provide an extra edge of judgment for now.
1 = unreliable, 10 = excellent
CURRENCY: the timeliness of the information | C = 8 | ||
· When was the information published or posted? · Has the information been revised or updated? · Is the information current or out-of-date for your topic? · Are the links functional? | 09 Feb 2024 No Current Yes | ||
RELEVANCE: the importance of the information for your needs | R = 8 | ||
· Does the information relate to your topic or answer your question? · Who is the intended audience? · Is the information at an appropriate level? · Have you looked at a variety of sources before choosing this one? · Would you be comfortable using this source for a research paper? | Yes Adults/Teens Yes Yes Somewhat | ||
AUTHORITY: the source of the information | A = 8 | ||
· Who is the author/publisher/source/sponsor? · Are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given? · What are the author's credentials or organizational affiliations given? · What are the author's qualifications to write on the topic? · Is there contact information, such as a publisher or e-mail address? · Does the URL reveal anything about the author or source? | Madeline Clarke, Sharif Abuadbba, Kristen Moore, Shahroz Tariq, CISRO No (but can be researched on LinkedIn) 7+ years of experience in communicating science, tech, and politics (not including others) No (besides LinkedIn) No | ||
ACCURACY: the reliability, truthfulness, and correctness of the content | A = 9 | ||
· Where does the information come from? · Is the information supported by evidence? · Has the information been reviewed or refereed? · Can you verify any of the information in another source? · Does the language or tone seem biased and free of emotion? · Are there spelling, grammar, or other typographical errors? | PHD Researchers Yes Yes Yes Yes No | ||
PURPOSE: the reason the information exists | P = 9 | ||
· What is the purpose of the information? · Do the authors/sponsors make their intentions or purpose clear? · Is the information fact? opinion? propaganda? · Does the point of view appear objective and impartial? · Are there political, ideological, cultural, religious, institutional, or personal biases? | Guidance Yes Fact + open for development Yes Perhaps looking for more people to employ for the issue | ||
| TOTAL = | 42 | |
45 - 50 Excellent | 40 - 44 Good | 35 - 39 Average | 30 - 34 Borderline Acceptable | Below 30 – Unacceptable
Conclusion
The enormity that the future trick of deepfakes hold reflect something we face here in finding the objective reliability of sources. Combing over what we can grasp in our pursuit to truth can compound just as easy as it does when it does not get combed over. The importance of individual responsibility cannot be understated.
That being said, there seems to be good people out there trying to understand the complexity of these dangerous technologies and exploring ways for each individual to adapt towards the ideal. The article by Madeline seems to be on that path while keeping the end open for this rapidly changing environment - which indicates, to me at least, a sense of wisdom to learn from.
Comments
Post a Comment