In reality genAI isn’t all that novel when it comes to disinformation. People have been tricked into believing stuff for centuries with far less convincing tech. Editing and framing have been useful for manipulating viewers for as long as the medium has existed.

Step back a bit from the title question, and when you see a video, ask yourself “to what degree should I treat this as useful information?”

Being real or AI-gen is part of the critical examination, but just because something isn’t generated doesn’t mean it’s a good representation of reality. Say, for example, you scroll across a video of an ethnic minority being belligerent on the subway. If it’s AI, you know it’s not real. But even if it’s definitely real, what does it mean to you?

Well, it means that for 30 seconds at some undefined point in time, at some undisclosed location, some anonymous person with supposedly notable physical or linguistic or whatever characteristics appeared to have been belligerent. If you’re a scientist trying to define reality, this is a statistically-nonexistent sample. If you’re the average Twitter user, though, it threatens to plug into a mental network of symbols and signifiers that approximate reality. And this is a problem whether the video is real or staged or edited or generated: it functionally isn’t real-- isn’t a useful representation of reality-- so the degree to which it’s internalized is a problem.

What about denigrating politicians? Again, I think genAI may slightly flavor this problem, but isn’t an operative variable. Sometimes evidence of corruption is enough to take down a politician, sometimes evidence of outright crimes against children and humanity won’t do it. Sometimes obvious lies or manipulations are enough to take one down. Sometimes a CIA-produced sex-tape with an actor lookalike just makes people think you’re cool instead of making them turn on you.

Feel like pure shit just want it back

Most likely, yeah. All you have to do is find some object that you hadn’t observed previously, which leaves evidence of having existed. You come across a snail moving across the sidewalk with a slime trail behind it. Either (1) the snail and slime trail blipped into existence just to serve your perception or (2) the snail was there making a trail prior to your having perceived it. You can reasonably assume the latter is more plausible.

You might enjoy Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. It’s difficult but worthwhile. It sort of reconstructs epistemology/consciousness from the most basic fundamentals, starting with sense.

If I was certain I’d never need to use the app again I’d 100% wait for the biggest order of the week then dip

Because we’re too busy worrying about the US trying to starve Korean people. Material realities dominate superstructural minutiae.

No need to explain a fact that’s famously known. Turn on the TV and everyone will be talking about Engels misunderstanding authority. Go walk in the park and you’ll overhear people talking about Engels misunderstanding authority.

No you see the USA is Snape, China is Voldemort