Startseite Skepticism and the Digital Information Environment
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Skepticism and the Digital Information Environment

  • Matthew Carlson ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 1. Juli 2021
SATS
Aus der Zeitschrift SATS Band 22 Heft 2

Abstract

Deepfakes are audio, video, or still-image digital artifacts created by the use of artificial intelligence technology, as opposed to traditional means of recording. Because deepfakes can look and sound much like genuine digital recordings, they have entered the popular imagination as sources of serious epistemic problems for us, as we attempt to navigate the increasingly treacherous digital information environment of the internet. In this paper, I attempt to clarify what epistemic problems deepfakes pose and why they pose these problems, by drawing parallels between recordings and our own senses as sources of evidence. I show that deepfakes threaten to undermine the status of digital recordings as evidence. The existence of deepfakes thus encourages a kind of skepticism about digital recordings that bears important similarities to classic philosophical skepticism concerning the senses. However, the skepticism concerning digital recordings that deepfakes motivate is also importantly different from classical skepticism concerning the senses, and I argue that these differences illuminate some possible strategies for solving the epistemic problems posed by deepfakes.


Corresponding author: Matthew Carlson, Philosophy, Wabash College, 301 W Wabash, 47933 Crawfordsville, IN, USA, E-mail:

References

Barthes, R. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. R Howard, tr. New York: Hill & Wang.Suche in Google Scholar

Benovsky, J. 2016. “Depiction and Imagination.” SATS 17 (1): 61–80, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25334-3_4.Suche in Google Scholar

Brueckner, A. 1994. “The Structure of the Skeptical Argument.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4): 827–35, https://doi.org/10.2307/2108413.Suche in Google Scholar

Burt, T., and E. Horvitz. 2020. New Steps to Combat Disinformation. Also available at https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2020/09/01/disinformation-deepfakes-newsguard-video-authenticator/.Suche in Google Scholar

Cavedon-Taylor, D. 2013. “Photographically Based Knowledge.” Episteme 10: 283–97, https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2013.213.Suche in Google Scholar

Clement, J. 2020. YouTube—Statistics and Facts. Also available at https://www.statista.com/topics/2019/youtube/.Suche in Google Scholar

Daguerre, L. J. M. 1980. “Daguerreotype.” In Classic Essays on Photography, edited by A. Trachtenberg, 11–13. New Haven: Leete’s Island Books. Original work published 1838.Suche in Google Scholar

Descartes, R. 1996. Meditations on First Philosophy. J. Cottingham, tr. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Original work published 1641.10.1017/CBO9780511805028Suche in Google Scholar

Ewing, P. 2019. What You Need to Know about Fake Video, Audio and the 2020 Election. NPR. Also available at https://www.npr.org/2019/09/02/754415386/what-you-need-to-know-about-fake-video-audio-and-the-2020-election.Suche in Google Scholar

Fallis, D. 2020. “The Epistemic Threat of Deepfakes.” Philosophy & Technology: 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00419-2.Suche in Google Scholar

Fisher, M., J. C. Woodrow, and P. Hermann. 2016. Pizzagate: From Rumor, to Hashtag, to Gunfire in D.C. The Washington Post. Also available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pizzagate-from-rumor-to-hashtag-to-gunfire-in-dc/2016/12/06/4c7def50-bbd4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html.Suche in Google Scholar

Floridi, L. 2011. The Philosophy of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199232383.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Floridi, L. 2018. “Artificial Intelligence, Deepfakes, and a Future of Ectypes.” Philosophy & Technology 31: 317–21, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0325-3.Suche in Google Scholar

Goldman, A. I. 1976. “Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 73: 771–91, https://doi.org/10.2307/2025679.Suche in Google Scholar

Grinberg, N., K. Joseph, L. Friedland, B. Swire-Thompson, and D. Lazer. 2019. “Fake News on Twitter During the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election.” Science 363 (6425): 374–8, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706.Suche in Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1999. “Circulating Reference. Sampling the Soil in the Amazon Forest.” In Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, 24–79. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Locke, J. 1975. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by P. H. Nidditch, 1–656. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Original work published 1689.10.1093/oseo/instance.00018020Suche in Google Scholar

Maddy, P. 2017. What Philosophers Do: Skepticism and the Practice of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190618698.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Madrigal, A. 2017. What Facebook Did to American Democracy. The Atlantic. Also available at https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/.Suche in Google Scholar

Magnus, P. D. 2009. “On Trusting Wikipedia.” Episteme 6: 74–90, https://doi.org/10.3366/e17423600080005551.Suche in Google Scholar

McKernon, E. 1925. “Fake News and the Public.” Harpers Magazine 151: 528–36.Suche in Google Scholar

Nguyen, C. T. 2020. “Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles.” Episteme 17 (2): 141–61, https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.32.Suche in Google Scholar

O’Connor, C., and J. O. Weatherall. 2019. The Misinformation Age. New Haven: Yale University Press.10.2307/j.ctv8jp0hkSuche in Google Scholar

Oreskes, N., and E. M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Phillips, D. M. 2009. “Photography and Causation: Responding to Scruton’s Scepticism.” British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (4): 327–40, https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayp036.Suche in Google Scholar

Prater, N., and M. Hartmann. 2021. Chauvin Trial Closing Arguments: ‘You Can Believe Your Eyes’. New York Intelligencer. Also available at https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/derek-chauvin-trial-everything-you-need-to-know.html.Suche in Google Scholar

Rini, R. 2020. “Deepfakes and the Epistemic Backstop.” Philosopher’s Imprint 20 (24): 1–16.Suche in Google Scholar

Skyrms, B. 2010. Signals. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580828.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Starbird, K. 2017. “Examining the Alternative Media Ecosystem through the Production of Alternative Narratives of Mass Shooting Events on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 11(1), 1–10. Menlo Park: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.10.1609/icwsm.v11i1.14878Suche in Google Scholar

Stroud, B. 1984. The Significance of Philosophical Scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198247613.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Toews, R. 2020. Deepfakes Are Going to Wreak Havoc on Society. We Are Not Prepared. Forbes. Also available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2020/05/25/deepfakes-are-going-to-wreak-havoc-on-society-we-are-not-prepared/#5e61a3367494.Suche in Google Scholar

Ulin, D. 2015. Review: David K. Shipler’s ‘Freedom of Speech’ Reflects Our Fractured Times. Los Angeles Times. Also available at https://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-david-shipler-20150503-story.html.Suche in Google Scholar

Vosoughi, S., D. Roy, and S. Aral. 2018. “The Spread of True and False News Online.” Science 359 (6380): 1146–51, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559.Suche in Google Scholar

Walton, K. 1984. “Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism.” Critical Inquiry 11 (2): 246–77, https://doi.org/10.1086/448287.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-07-01
Published in Print: 2021-11-25

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 8.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sats-2021-0008/pdf
Button zum nach oben scrollen