Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gregory Koster's avatar

It's fun to mock Californians for their witlessness. There is also a serious problem with AI generated fakes. For example:

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/26/1247237175/baltimore-ai-generated-racist-audio-crime

Briefly, a Maryland school principal suddenly had to confront an audio recording of himself saying vile racist things. He was hounded, his family was harassed, and he had to move to another job in the district. But even now, with the recording established as fake, the principal still has to fend off attacks by those who haven't gotten the latest, or worst, don't want to believe that the recording was fake. Such aftermaths are a big driving force in journalism today, and a principal reason for the low esteem the press is facing these days.

So. Does First Amendment protect such a recording. Ferociously tough question:

a) if yes, the victims will have to pay an appallingly high price

b) if, no what principle do you use to determine if a crime has been committed? Is it false? It would be easy to round up a hundred journalists who would swear that the Hunter Biden laptop is fake, and twice as many intelligence "professionals' to back them up.

Many thanks for the Pennypacker appetizer in this fine post.

Expand full comment
Jorg's avatar

"Apparently, a sizable number of California voters share a genetic trait stunting their capacity to recognize political satire and parody—a disability greatly augmented by the use of artificial intelligence (A.I.)"

Well, they've been electing super majorities of Far Left legislators for a couple of decades, and those people's motto might as well be, "That's not funny!"

Expand full comment
23 more comments...

No posts