00:00 Princess Kate is right that many amateur photographers and bring their photos into
00:04 Photoshop and hide the app. And I think probably what she did is one of these best take like
00:09 montages where she took a series of photos and she wanted to get the smiling face just right
00:14 for every before all the kids and herself and did a little montaging and then it just all it
00:19 in invariably leaves a few artifacts. And so I was pretty confident at that point that this was
00:25 fairly benign. I understood why the AP pulled it because they have very particular standards.
00:30 But I don't think it was nefarious. I don't think it's a sign that she's dead. I don't think aliens
00:35 have taken over her body and all the crazy nonsense that the internet is coming up with.
00:40 I think this is a classic story of photo editing that was a slightly sloppy. You know, at the end
00:45 of the day, this is a pretty simple story. But what's interesting about it is even though this
00:50 is a story about Photoshop and fairly benign photo editing, it there is the shadow of AI.
00:56 Like if we were living if we weren't living in the generative AI age, I don't think you'd be
01:01 hearing much of what we are hearing. Yeah, I do think that the reason why these conspiracies can
01:07 take hold is because we do live at a time where somebody could have fully fabricated that image,
01:12 or that was a body double and then they replaced her face there. And so this is still an AI story
01:18 to some degree. But I think it really is quite innocuous. We are seeing two things. One is people
01:26 are creating fake images, fake audio, fake video of Trump, of Biden, of Harris, and trying to use
01:31 that to damage them. But they're also doing something else, which is they're using the
01:36 specter of deep fakes to try to dismiss reality. Right? Because if you live in this world where
01:41 anything could be fake, well, the the video of Trump stumbling on his words and calling his wife
01:46 Mercedes, he can just say it's fake. So that's actually very dangerous also is you can deny
01:53 reality when things can be fake. And I think you're seeing both of those around the election.
01:58 And of course, we're seeing the awful content around non consensual sexual imagery. We saw it
02:02 with Taylor Swift, but high school girls every day are now being victims of this. Journalists,
02:08 human rights activists, politicians, people who attract unwanted attention are being victims of
02:14 being inserted into explicit material. People are using it to create child sexual abuse material,
02:18 people are using it to commit commit small to large scale frauds, getting phone calls from
02:23 what seems like your loved ones or talking to your CEO, but it's not it's actually somebody
02:27 who's faking them. So you're seeing really significant weaponization at the individual
02:33 level at the societal level and at the democracy level. And I think it's probably a sign of things
02:38 to come. Individuals have to stop pretending that they can forensically analyze content and be
02:43 reliable at it. You can't this is a really hard job. I do this for a living. It's hard. So what
02:49 you have to realize as a consumer is that you are vulnerable. And you are not going to be able to
02:54 forensically analyze analyze your way out of this. I think we just need to be more thoughtful about
02:59 how we consume information and understand that the journalists have a serious job. And by the way,
03:04 when they get it wrong, there are consequences. And you can't say that about the knuckleheads
03:07 on Twitter. There's no consequence for them. The first approach is what we call reactive approach.
03:12 I wait for the reporter from the Telegraph or BBC to contact me. They send me the photograph. I run
03:16 a battery of tasks, try to figure out what's going on. I let them know. They set the record
03:20 straight. Meanwhile, you know, an entire new cycle has gone by. Right. So it's a relatively slow
03:27 process. We measure that in hours or days. But at the speed of the Internet, you know, that doesn't
03:33 really work. So the proactive technique is that you're the camera itself. So Princess Kate's
03:41 camera, when she took that photo would have said, Ah, this photo was taken on this date and time at
03:46 this location. This is a credential that author that authenticates that. And then as she put that
03:52 into Photoshop, Photoshop would say, Okay, this is what I did the photo, bing, bing, bing, bing, bing.
03:56 And then when that goes to the AP, AP can look at that content credential. It's manifest, we call it
04:02 and say, ah, okay, this is what happened. This is consistent with our photo editing standards,
04:08 or it is not we will accept it, we will not. And none of this would have happened. Right? If that
04:13 if that existed, and the nice thing about the proactive techniques is you're there at the point
04:17 of creation. Yeah. And as long as those credentials are there, you get to make decisions. Now the
04:23 drawback is, we need those contra credentials in some what 10 billion devices around the world.
04:29 And we need the infrastructure. And so that's going to take a little bit of time. And I think
04:32 at the end of the day, it's going to be a combination of those two solutions. Right?
04:36 The credentials will work. When people like I think in this case, if that Canon camera,
04:41 and that version of Photoshop that Kate had were compliant, I think she wasn't trying to
04:45 fool anybody shoots that dinner photo, then it would have worked perfectly. A dedicated bad actor,
04:50 yeah, they'll find a way around it. And then the reactive techniques that we talked about,
04:54 that's where I come in. So a combination of those two is sort of what you need.
