I’d also like to comment on the “ha, fooled you!” tactic used in this article, where the authors asks the reader to choose the photo of the real person from two given photos and then reveals that, gasp, both are computer generated.
Whenever I run into this often-used tactic in papers and talks, I can’t help but feel – no, the author didn’t just convince me of their point. Instead they convinced me that they don’t value being trustworthy. Often I will just stop reading the article right then. Or if I do continue I will become unforgivingly skeptical of any claim that doesn’t provide a citation that is independently verifiable.
Use of the tactic feels particularly peculiar in an article which itself grasps towards the implications of a future in which photos and videos are no longer trustworthy, a future in which personal reputation will be more meaningful.
Whenever I run into this often-used tactic in papers and talks, I can’t help but feel – no, the author didn’t just convince me of their point. Instead they convinced me that they don’t value being trustworthy. Often I will just stop reading the article right then. Or if I do continue I will become unforgivingly skeptical of any claim that doesn’t provide a citation that is independently verifiable.
Use of the tactic feels particularly peculiar in an article which itself grasps towards the implications of a future in which photos and videos are no longer trustworthy, a future in which personal reputation will be more meaningful.