• sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    A primary concern for Petrucelli, Jenkins, and Antell, longtime documentary filmmakers and co-founders of the Archival Producers Alliance (APA), is to avoid a situation in which AI-generated images make their way into documentaries without proper disclosure, creating a false historical record.

    They shouldn’t be in a documentary period. A documentary is meant to be factual and historical so nothing fake should be injected into it.

    • Flying_Hellfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Just to play devil’s advocate, does that mean any “artist rendering” shouldn’t be in a documentary? Documentaries have had drawings, with a disclaimer that it is an artist rendering, for as long as I can remember. Or what about when they hire actors to do a “dramatization” of what happened, how is this different?

      • rdyoung@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        They are different because they are clearly not real images or video. The fact that we can generate images of whatever we want that are near if not impossible to discern as fake by the naked eye, means that they shouldn’t be in there at all.

        • Flying_Hellfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Again, how is this different from an artist rendering? There’s been artists creating digital media for documentaries for a long long time.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            You’re not understanding, possibly on purpose?

            Look, try this: if the scene with the artist’s rendering says “artist’s rendering” in it, then it’s fine. Start there.

            • Flying_Hellfish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I’m not sure if you meant to reply to me, but that’s what I have been saying, if it says it’s a rendering, I don’t see how it’s different.

    • littletranspunk@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      A documentary is meant to be factual and historical so nothing fake should be injected into it.

      If you trust a documentary like this then I don’t trust your reasoning. “Vaxxed” is a documentary that, incorrectly, talks about the dangers of vaccination.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Documentaries often include recreations of events, such as historical events that weren’t filmed. It’s usually noted as being a recreation or re-enactment. If AI-created images are used instead and are noted as being such, I don’t really see the problem, assuming the images are curated to depict the scene accurately.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        A recreation is a scripted recreation, and I believe legally required to be noted as such. Whether that’s in the credits or on screen at time of playing I think is at the discretion of the filmmaker and editors.

        Wildly different concept than generative AI models doing whatever they feel. At the end of the day, I can see why some people can’t see the difference, but it’s huge. I’d also say that if the former were improperly used in a horrific way, you’d just say “Well the viewers can stay away from that documentary”, but as we we’ve all seen over the past decade or so, once the falsely represented account of events is out there, you can’t stop it from spreading. Whether is a still image, or a reenactment. One has current legal repercussions and is covered by libel and slander protections, and the other doesn’t. World of difference.

      • DdCno1@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The problem in both cases is that people remember these artistic depiction as real, even if there’s a disclosure.

        • Blóðbók@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          That argument extends to any realistic recreation of events. It’s not wrong, I’m just not sure what could be done about it.

        • db2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Are we worrying about the fully functional adults that still need to be told not to drink Draino?

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            Yeah television doesn’t affect anyone. That’s been a great success. Fox News anybody? Pizzagate?

            • db2@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              I think I’m pretty impervious to the impulse of drinking drain cleaner. 🤷