You can effectively use it to make it sound like every other side is unbelievable, or just to tire people into giving up, or get past spam filters by generating better than ever nonsense.
And the in-group will take it as a point of pride to believe lies from their own group anyway.
I think the bigger danger is the speed that people will be able to fabricate 'evidence' to support a false narrative faster than photographs of an event can come in.
The first images of a news story available could be fabrications.
What if news organizations were able to put pictures of Saddam's WMDs (that remember, never existed) on frontpage stories while the executive was trying to manufacture consent for entering a war?
I feel like the human brain is going to have a hard time being skeptical of fake news when fabricated fantasies can be rendered realistically.
> What if news organizations were able to put pictures of Saddam's WMDs (that remember, never existed) on frontpage stories while the executive was trying to manufacture consent for entering a war?
Then the outcome would be... exactly the outcome we had anyway, which was the OP's point. You can already lie with images with Photoshop. It's a little more work, but you can probably still hide it far better than you can pass off a DALL-E generated image as real.
Lying with images isn't the problem. Telling a consistent lie, getting all the details right even when new evidence comes in, that's a problem, and this sort of AI doesn't help with that at all.
You can effectively use it to make it sound like every other side is unbelievable, or just to tire people into giving up, or get past spam filters by generating better than ever nonsense.
And the in-group will take it as a point of pride to believe lies from their own group anyway.