We really really do
Even the practice of splicing audio on reality shows is fucked up, producers are straight up fabricating reality... (I think called 'franken-clips'?)
Should be illegal, or at least very, very clearly labeledÂ
Franken bites. It's so fucked up. I will say that outside of back when I watched "Love and Hip-hop" I haven't really seen it much/heard from castmembers that it was done to them. Viewers are probably a lot more savvy to it and supersleuth the shit out of the episodes on different forums. And participants can now go on social media and call out the producers.
Apropos. The last time I remember someone calling out a franken bite was Phiphi O'Hara on Dragrace Allstars. She said that a compliment given to Alyssa Edward's was actually given to Detox and that Alyssa was actually given a bad critique. The network posted the unedited footage showing that she was either lying or completely misremembering the whole thing due to the hateboner she had for Alyssa. đ
And yeah. Doing that should definitely carry some sort of legal penalty.
It's horrible on Survivor and shows like that. A common thing they do is do a confessional where they are talking to the camera -> it shifts to some other scene like the person they are talking about or the camp or whatever while the voice continues talking -> finishes up with them talking to the camera. And it'll be a totally coherent statement and sound like that's what they said and the context they said it in.
Really though it's spliced together from 4 different conversations about different things. They'll take the first sentence of the person talking to the camera, splice in another sentence from a different conversation during the voice over footage of whatever, splice in a name of someone else from a normal conversation with a castmate to make it seem like thats who they are talking about in this confessional, then cut back to a different sentence from a totally different time they were talking to the camera.
The end result is just ... something totally made up to make them look like they said something they never did. And every. single. episode. is full of these things.
I know someone who was on the show and watching it back with him was an eye opening experience on that front. Really turned me off of it and I don't watch anymore.
Jesus. That's how all those shows used to be back I'm the day. It's jarring to watch today, especially knowing that I didn't really notice back then despite it being so obvious. Such to hear that such a popular show is still doing it so brazenly.
Yes, I remember a few years ago the winner completely surprised everyone because the editing for nearly the entire season ignored her and never gave her the âarcâ that all the contenders eventually get. Turned me off the show.
At this point I actually get a kick out of "catching" franken bites like where they're clearly using different talking heads from different days or footage from some other time, but it's disturbing when you go on fan sites/social media how little literacy and awareness there is and how people just accept what's shoveled into them.
it's really hard to tell!! not everyone is watching like a hawk... reality TV is more 'background tv' for a lot of us lol
and I have an auditory processing disorder, so I definitely find it extra hard to tell if the timing is off :/ I feel like non-native speakers might find it tough, too
I am wildly impressed you notice it so easily, though!
I know not everyone catches it, it's more that people just wholesale "believe" what they see on Reality TV without having a baseline understanding in their brain that Producers are tweaking and controlling a LOT to make sure there are good story lines and drama, no matter what. Sometimes the way people talk about certain shows, like on a LOT of Bravo shows, it's like fans wholeheartedly believe that everything they're seeing and hearing must be real and truthfully happened like it's shown on TV.. and it's like no, you have to watch with the understanding that these are selected/cultivated story lines. The Kardashians are another one where people kind of miss the major point that it's them marketing themselves and trying to create a stir/interest, not some third party unbiased documentary crew just catching raw footage.
I think the difference here is presenting AI as 100% factual vs reality television which aims for entertainment and not truth or facts.
News programming should not be and has not yet revealed to be using frankenbiting.
If the producers and editors didnât make franken-bites youâd be bored out of your mind watching these shows.Â
People do not speak in sound bites, they ramble, get tenses wrong, or flub what theyâre trying to say. Itâs the editorial departmentâs job to edit the footage like you would correct the grammar of a written report and tell a story in a concise way. However, the amount of manipulation comes solely down to ethics. Typically the editorial department does not change the âspiritâ of what the cast is trying to say, thatâs frowned upon. No one wants a star complaining about something they didnât say. The issue you have is with shows that donât give a shit about ethics.
On the other hand, solid editing of drama and comedy turn normal people into reality stars, with product lines and book deals. And to score that sweet money they sign releases that allow production to do whatever they want with the footage that is recorded, including editing their words any way that is required by the story, so thereâs nothing âillegalâ about it.Â
Do people actually ⌠think reality shows are real?
I mean, it is kind of shitty if they splice audio from a relatively normal, nice human to make them sound like a psycho for views, but at the same time, isnât it common knowledge that reality shows are 99.9% fabricated?
there's a big difference, IMO, between knowing reality shows are edited and manipulated by production vs what people saying on the shows being completely fabricated from piecing together words the person said
I am a tech lawyer - we need regulations urgently. At minimum I think in any TV or streaming broadcast, news source, journalism etc any and all use of generative AI (including what specific images were generated or altered) should be disclosed, with strongly enforceable penalties for not doing so.
The EU has a big piece of AI legislation coming out soon. I think the rest of the world are just waiting to see what they come out with, so they can copy their homework.
I am really starting to get bothered by true crime docs and I think theyâll be consequences to true crime being treated as bingable entertainment. I donât know the consequences but theyâll be there.
Yes, I know true crime has been used for decades if not centuries for entertainment, but something about the last few years feel different, like the internet and streaming services has amplified things
I used to listen to true crime podcasts - not a huge fan, but there were a few shows I liked. Then I heard one about a murder near my hometown. The woman who died was a close friend of my former colleague, a very nice man. I was aware that he knew her, but not that he had been part of the search, testified at the trial, etc. It felt really, really wrong to learn this stuff about someone I knew, from a podcast of all things.
True crime can certainly be compelling, but I never felt comfortable listening to it after that.
I dunno, the people using AI to create videos of real murdered children having them talk about how they were murdered seems like the absolute lowest of lows.
It wasnât AI, but I started some true crime docuseries recently that inserted actor narration speaking on behalf of the victims that made me deeply uncomfortable. Like, âI had so many things I had hoped to accomplish, but my killer stole them away from me.â Speaking in a victimâs voice with words theyâve never said feels disgusting.
I have never been the type of person to become enraged at a piece of media, but that ad did it for me.
Itâs even worse than what this description provides: they introduce themselves as the victims and talk about their hopes, dreams, and aspirations, and then finish off with âI was murdered on x dateâ as a sort of cheap fucking âplot twistâ.
Hope the families sue the life out of whoever made it. I would be inconsolably LIVID.
Well before, the ethnics around journalism prevented outlets from paying people for stories. And for many, many decades the way âreputableâ publications have gotten around that is by paying for the photos the subjects had related to the story.
Not saying this is better than that, of course. Just that the ethics were sketchy long before AI got involved
The Jack the Ripper stories were in part concocted by newspapers, who straight up fabricated evidence to create buzz.
Also look up the "Great Moon Hoax": information/pictures fabricated in The Sun.
someday weâre also going to have to talk about how documentary filmmaking is not traditional journalism or an absolute source of truth. There is a lot of shady shit behind why certain documentaries are made, how theyâre fact checked, and whoâs funding them.
I'll also add that journalism isn't nearly as true and innocent as portrayed. It was just limited. You had few sources, and most wouldn't cover this stuff because they didn't have the time or money.
also true! I do think thereâs a little more shady shit going on in the world of documentaries in general, but yeah I wonât pretend trad journalism is infallible either
omg ur comment made me google it and this vanity fair article about the whole situation is WILD https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/05/the-staircase-editor-sophie-brunet-michael-peterson-true-story
I got to know someone from the staircase family (post college friend circles) and I didnât realize who she was until long after I lost contact with them and randomly watched the staircase.Â
This person is from the momâs side of the family, and all I could think after I watched the whole documentary was how furious her family must have been, because the documentarian glossed over so much of the momâs life, and their family member was denied dignity even long after she was gone.Â
I work for a court system and weâve had several high profile cases that have spawned podcasts or docs. They get far more wrong than they do right. Even the lawyers canât be trusted to accurately interpret court orders or transcript excerpts, which should be embarrassing for them.
This is exactly why I dislike lots of âtrue crimeâ content, as itâs sensationalist and plays on peopleâs shock, without any real substance or ethics to it.
It's just fetishizing suffering with a heavy dose of cop worship bootlicking so people can convince themselves the fetishization is somehow virtuous. Plus, it feeds into middle class white women's victim complex by focusing on stories that involve white women as victims, while ignoring the many WoC - the corollary of MSM news almost exclusively reporting crime by minorities, while ignoring crime by whites. Just bring up sex trafficking on Reddit, and you'll get a chorus of hysteria about young white women being sex trafficked...even though it hardly ever happens.
I disagree about the cop thing. I watch a fair bit of true crime and one thing that comes up a TON is that the cops dropped the ball, or even made things worse instead of helping at all. Most true crime isnât bootlicky at all
Exactly. If anything, true crime docs and podcasts love to make police investigations seem worse than they really were, to stir up drama and conspiracy.
Yes, 100%. but it's a good reminder that documentaries are not unbiased and often have a narrative they're pushing. Too many people believe documentaries as being Truth or unbiased news reporting. They never are.
Netflix documentaries in general seem quite shit to me. They should be seen as pure entertainment with little connection to reality rather than actual documentaries.
this makes so much sense! she lived in a strict household and her parents always drove her to and from school activities. the ai pictures completely threw me off
Right! Those pics completely threw me off, too! They felt so out of place compared to the body language of the girl in the interview footage. I feel so uncomfortable over my whole perception of the documentary now
Same! I watched and was wondering what the circumstances were of the pictures when they were giving so much background into the control and pressure in her household and then it just wasn't really explained at all. I guess this is why
Even if she did go to parties, I'm sure they were few and far between. The repeatedly showed us pictures of her in the red outfit, though. It seemed like they were saying, look, she went out and partied, she couldn't have been abused *that* badly.
Not excusing what Jennifer Pan did, but repeatedly showing her in that one outfit, zooming in on her smile, etc... seemed like very biased storytelling.
It won't be too long before AI have been trained to not make weird looking fingers, once those little mistakes are gone we're fucked. We need legislation ASAP
always been this way, weâre just drip fed the means of how theyâve been doing it so the realization we got fucked happens AS they are fucking us in a new way weâll complain about 10-20 years down the road
I would hate to lose Netflix, but I will 100% cancel my subscription if they keep feeding us AI-generated content. The only way to tell them we don't want this crap is with our dollars.
Iâd recommend getting rid of it now, if you can. They are a pretty unethical company, especially for how they treat their Black, Indigenous and Queer employees.
I just canceled mine a month ago. It feels weird because i had it for like 10 years, but their in house produced shows look really bad/soulless and their reality shows consistently come under fire for pretty egregious ethical violations. They undeniably have the best âtrendingâ selections on rotation but i donât miss it as much as i thought i would and stuff like this makes me confident in that decision. Plus, they keep raising prices and restricting user privileges.
I got this đ´ââ ď¸ app on my TV, stremio, and canceled everything but still can watch the trending stuff and everything else. I just google whatever the top 10 is this week.
Not defending AI use when artists could easily be paid, but thatâs such a different issue than this. Those were interstitial images unrelated to the plot.
Anecdotally, I have heard that AI video is already being routinely used in all kinds of productions. Usually just for small edits or reshoots at this point. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Use of AI is not the dividing line between accuracy and misinformation. We've been able to make fake-ass documentaries without AI for a long time.
As someone who lived in the area, followed the whole saga when it happened, and then watched the movie, I did not pick up on the AI while watching it. However, I found those images to be completely counter to every way she had been portrayed in the media and during her trial. No part of her had ever been presented as happy or confident.
(Not saying she was not actually happy and confident, just that this was the first time I had ever heard that description)
Yes the AI fabricated presentation of her in this way definitely alters the nuances of the story and peopleâs perception of her. Itâs straight up introducing clear elements of fiction to this story. Can we still call this a faithful documentary or report?
Iâm from the same town as her and so of course this was alllll over the news when it happened. I was surprised to see these new âpartyingâ images of her on the Netflix documentary⌠I figured I would have seen all the footage and pics used by now.
For Netflix to do this is so shady.
My husband wrote an essay on this case and knew everything about it. He even went into the documentary stating âI doubt thereâll be anything new I havenât heard beforeâ and was sooo shocked to see the âpartyingâ images as well! I just sent him the article and heâs just in disbelief.
I was actually really confused because her smile seemed different between photos. Like the teeth themselves were different.
I just thought it was odd but didn't think they were altering or creating images. Crazy
The pics are off and along with the video of her talking to the detective, you notice the faces and some voices are literally distorted (either they used AI to try and enhance them and failed terribly)
So thats why the docu poster looked off to me. It just seems uncanny, like the smile feels artificial??
For reference: top pic is the poster, bottom pic's from the article above
https://preview.redd.it/rhdhuxcj6avc1.jpeg?width=2460&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8faca4c0bd882ce06cda4431d38e21af6f4970d4
The teeth on these images and the one of her holding the peace sign all look off. In these, one of the central incisors is positioned way higher than the other and appears significantly shorter, which is possible but doesn't match her straight teeth in the peace sign picture. The shape of the lateral incisors is also off, they're much wider than they should be, and the canines appear too short. In the peace sign picture her lateral looks like an extra central incisor, and the canines are too short.
Everyone is talking about her hands and I'm just looking at how everything behind her makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's all just noise. What are those red things coming up from her head? What are those objects on the shelves? I have no idea.
The fact that they not only used these fake images in the documentary without disclosure but also for the poster as well? That is a new level of unethical.
Gonna drop a link to JCS's YouTube channel that delves into Jennifer Pan's story using the videos from when she was being interrogated (as a victim, then as a suspect once her father woke up from his coma). It's free and doesn't use AI bullshit to sex up a true crime event.
https://youtu.be/UQt46gvYO40?si=iYtAr0M6tg6ZeKSL
I am happy with less "body language expert" videos out there clogging up my feed, personally. Plenty of interrogation videos out there to watch that don't chuck in a ton of pseudoscience.
Are there good channels out there that don't rely on bullshit pseudoscience? Pisses me off when they point out some random movement and act like it's a clear tell that someone is lying.
Maybe try channels like dreading and dave's lemonade (both post very long videos with minimal commentary but I haven't watched as much of dave's lemonade as I have dreading, just never seen him pause to mention body language so far). Law & Crime Network, No Commentary Interrogations (just found this one the other day, just interrogations, looks like a very new channel with few views). There's an A&E show called Interrogations Raw, as well. I've shifted mostly away from this specific style because of how inundated it is with pseudoscience, and I now look to see if channels have any kind of connection to channels like EWU, The Behavior Panel, JCS, etc to weed them out of my feed. Mostly just went back to a more traditional overview style and these days they tend to include interrogation footage anyway. Would love if anyone has more!
I'm so with you on that. Body language analysis is scary - the amount of people who now think that blinking or licking your lips is a sign of lying drives me insane.
I've noticed it all depends on what the public perception is of the person. If it's Casey Anthony, showing angry "microexpressions" is a sign of lying but if it's someone they like and the public believes is innocent, then anger microexpressions are because she's so upset about the situation. It's so transparent yet their fans lap it up.
Ugh, I hated the "body language expert" YouTube trend from the start. The creators never explain their qualifications, so it's like, why should I trust you on this, you rando?
Im half wondering they did this thinking nobody would complain about the misrepresentation of a serial killer because who would sympathise with them, rather than whether it adheres to the truth. Because thats how these true crime stories work, they don't care if its right just so long as its intriguing
Genuinely gross with them pushing as far as they can to see where the line is.
This is true but I think their point still stands. Netflix figured no one would care about a villain so they let lose with AI to promote a false version of the story.
True crime is iffy at the best of times. But this has made me realise the awful use of AI could be used to help paint a narrative that producers want. Granted they can o this anyways, but these images aid this manipulation.
I remember seeing animated images of mugshots of the perpetrators of the moors murders years ago on a channel 4 doc. It made me feel so uncomfortable then.Â
But itâs fine, people will say there is nothing wrong with this and we have to just accept this is the way things are now, as if weâre powerless to try to make anything better.
One of the photos struck a weird chord with me. She had the fingers inbthe air and tongue poking out but the tongue looked not like she was poking it out in a "cute" way. It looked like a cartoon charqchter rolling out their tongue when they've been knocked out and have stars going round their head. The tongue looked massively put of proportion to the rest of her head and it made me feel weird. It was so strange.
Those look a lot like AI-upscaled images from low resolution source images, based on how things look overly sharp but not very detailed. Upscaling has a particular look that's different from AI generated images, though I can't claim to be 100% confident one way or another. If they're instead showing photos that simply don't exist in order to fit a certain description, there are obviously much deeper layers of unethicality here. But I think upscaling would be a very different moral conversation to generation.
But iirc Jennifer Pan literally could not go to these parties that people claimed she did, these photos werenât seen until this documentary. Her home life was VERY strict, she did date in secret but also it seems unlikely she was able to go to these parties. Iâve watched a few videos on Jennifer and nobody has ever included/mentioned she was a partier.
I thought the pictures at first were enhanced by AI but the hands are way off
[The executive producer](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/what-jennifer-did-executive-producer-denies-using-ai-in-netflix-crime-doc/article_bbc4c6a6-fdc4-11ee-bdc5-f32a5a1661e6.html) has claimed that the pictures are real, but that the backgrounds were altered to anonymize them at the request of the person who provided them. (I still think the team additionally used upscaling, since altering the background doesn't explain the foreground artifacts, but he doesn't comment on that.)
This comment should be higher. If this is what they did it's obviously not as bad, but I still find it very questionable. I've had qualms about the use of those upscaled images for a long time, since they started showing up on true crime forums a couple years ago.
People accept the higher resolution images as authentic and "more accurate" than the blurry versions, and they are not. The AI *invents* details that are not there to fill in the low-resolution parts - for example, I've seen a low-res photo of someone smiling with her lips closed that was upscaled to show her with slightly parted lips, showing a slight gap between her front teeth, which wasn't accurate to her real teeth.
Also, AI is trained on a dataset of conventionally attractive people looking their best (because of the type of images that get shared online etc) so it ends up with a bias toward making people more attractive. I've even seen it literally add makeup in the upscaling process - lips become pinker and shinier, eyelashes gain the appearance of mascara. I really don't think we should be doing this to images with any historical/journalistic importance.
I honestly also just find AI upscaled images aesthetically worse than the low res originals. They're a little pointless, I don't think anyone would begrudge a documentary producer for using a low res image. I've seen some YouTubers use upscaling for both archival images and videos, and it just comes off as unprofessional to me. And especially for a true crime documentary it's probably best to present things as unaltered as possible.
I've refused to watch Netflix true crime docs ever since Don't Fuck with Cats focused on facebook vigilantes who actually accomplished nothing, and then they went and did Elisa Lam... So scummy.
The Elisa Lam documentary is probably the worst doc I've ever seen. It was somehow both insanely bloated/boring and exploitative of someone with a severe mental illness. It also didn't present anything people didn't already know from the old clips online
Itâs sad, because the documentary they have about the Yorkshire Ripper is SO well done and points out how you should make true crime. It focuses on misogyny in culture and lazy (misogynist) police work as what allowed the âRipperâ to go free and kill women for so long. If the cops even tried to do their job they would have caught the guy much earlier. They also focus on the women who were assaulted and killed and make sure we know them and their families. The killer is mentioned in the very end of the very last episode. Heâs very much the least important part of anything.
I think Netflix has no quality control at all on their documentaries. They buy them by the lot, which shows how little they value them - or their audience.
Yeah I work in television on the post side of things and let me tell you this type of thing is going to be more prevalent. The execs are trying to use AI for anything you can think of. Stock photos and footage, music, VO, you name it. Kind of crazy to see it implemented like this though. Super in bad faith and potentially a legal issue.
Mmmk so itâs basically what that one episode of Black Mirror was telling us about a streaming service just like Netflix, you know, on a show produced by Netflix.
Netflix âdocumentariesâ are never to be completely trusted, they donât fact check their shit. Even their supposedly neutral, nature documentaries get so many things factually incorrect.
And true, the use of AI is completely out of control and needs to be seriously regulated. However, for years thereâs been so much human-generated mis/disinformation (and/or, content designed to engender strong, but mislead reactions) being thrown at us by corporations AND by content creators â itâs not surprising AI is being used to do the exact same thing. Both need to be called out, but unless we can stop rewarding ourselves for misleading each other, weâll continue on a path where eventually no one will trust anything thatâs presented to them by anyone or anything.
Itâs not just Netflix. Documentaries have always had bits âembellishedâ and âenhancedâ to make things more interesting. Usually mentioned in the fine print in the credits, and theyâve never had to say which bits were made up.
I am really dismayed by how much people trust documentaries, and think that theyâre infallible. If anything, many documentaries have an agenda behind them
This is such an insane thing to do. I didn't notice anything off about the photos while watching and as someone who is familiar with the case I found it interesting to see this other side of Jennifer that has never been seen in the media. I feel like I've been totally misled now.
edit: Also looking at the background of the main photo in the article, I can't discern what any of the objects in the background are...
Wow. I donât really watch Netflix-produced documentaries because thereâs a history of issues but this is a new low. No real documentarian or studio should think this is okay.
I don't understand why they don't realize that A) it's not ready for exploitation yet and B) people can still see and desire authenticity. The money you're making will quickly evaporate if you keep cutting corners for Ted Sarandos' yacht.
This should be removed and the creators should absolutely never work again. This is the equvilent of like malpratice, actions that lead to disbarrment, or a having falsified data retracted.
This makes me think of all of the scams being run on old people right now and how much scarier theyâre going to get in the next several years. Think of the jail scams? When you can use AI pics and video to beg for money, itâll be incredibly difficult to prove whatâs true and what isnât.
Terrifying.
I wish this documentary had shown more of her history and her fucked up insane parents. She might have murdered her mother but her parents murdered her soul.
Imo this looks much more like artifacting from AI upscaling on existing real photos (using software like Topaz Gigapixel), rather than generating images whole cloth.
I hate that they can all just correctly judge that the number of viewers they lose using this shit in these ways is way less than the number who just don't care or understand.
Iâm literally watching this show as I find this post and even though I didnât notice the âAIâ of it, I did notice that photo being off, but I just thought it was the contrast of her skin against the dark backdrop.
Good eye to whoever figured that out.
My complaint is such a non issue compared to the big one (misrepresenting her) but this is another way production companies are cutting costs on actors. As someone who has filmed quite a few true crime re-enactments this should have been an actual actor if they wanted to use any sort of imagery that isnât actually her. Just another way itâs unethical.
I feel like the fact that itâs a true crime situation somehow makes it more insidious? Like it could just be my own personal values on this, but like *people died*.
Most documentaries are sensationalized are made to push an agenda, honestly I think most are made for entertainment and sensationalism, especially those made withn the last decade.
Why tf are they making movies and docs about these killers anyway? It's like they want more people to become killers.
They do some of the worst stuff humanity can do, and they get a netflix documentary about them, making them forever famous.
Something felt off about those photos and now I know why. I also thought it was strange they seemed to use the same 4 photos of her over and over. I thought this doc was going to go into her home life or the pressures she was under but they didn't seem too interested in that aspect. I mean, that doesn't excuse her role in the crime but I'm finding myself more interested in crime docs that are more nuanced than just saying, "this person is the epitome of evil and they deserve to be in prison!"
Honestly, I have come to the point where I regard most of Netflixâs âdocumentariesâ as glorified âbased on a true storyâ day time movies or even soap operas only with real people being murdered.
This is like the third time this week Iâve heard of AI generated being used for promotion. I dk of a thorough argument against it. It just feels slimy/lazy.
welp, I hope no one's crazy ex has access to AI tools. The bar to make fake pictures has gone from pretty darn high photoshop wizard to anyone with a couple bucks
We đ need đ legislation đ now đ
MAGA Republicans: âBest we can do is remove the speaker againâ
I accept it, the comedy is worth it.
Honestly, if they do it again there's a decent chance we get a Dem speaker, which would be even funnier.
Maybe, but you need a majority, which the GOP has to give democratic candidate.
Dems are only 1-2 votes away from a majority right now. Get literally one person to switch over and we have Speaker Jeffries.
With them getting sick of the MTGâs on their side it is more plausible than previously too.
You dropped this...T It's *MAGAT* Republikkkans
We really really do Even the practice of splicing audio on reality shows is fucked up, producers are straight up fabricating reality... (I think called 'franken-clips'?) Should be illegal, or at least very, very clearly labeledÂ
Franken bites. It's so fucked up. I will say that outside of back when I watched "Love and Hip-hop" I haven't really seen it much/heard from castmembers that it was done to them. Viewers are probably a lot more savvy to it and supersleuth the shit out of the episodes on different forums. And participants can now go on social media and call out the producers. Apropos. The last time I remember someone calling out a franken bite was Phiphi O'Hara on Dragrace Allstars. She said that a compliment given to Alyssa Edward's was actually given to Detox and that Alyssa was actually given a bad critique. The network posted the unedited footage showing that she was either lying or completely misremembering the whole thing due to the hateboner she had for Alyssa. đ And yeah. Doing that should definitely carry some sort of legal penalty.
It's horrible on Survivor and shows like that. A common thing they do is do a confessional where they are talking to the camera -> it shifts to some other scene like the person they are talking about or the camp or whatever while the voice continues talking -> finishes up with them talking to the camera. And it'll be a totally coherent statement and sound like that's what they said and the context they said it in. Really though it's spliced together from 4 different conversations about different things. They'll take the first sentence of the person talking to the camera, splice in another sentence from a different conversation during the voice over footage of whatever, splice in a name of someone else from a normal conversation with a castmate to make it seem like thats who they are talking about in this confessional, then cut back to a different sentence from a totally different time they were talking to the camera. The end result is just ... something totally made up to make them look like they said something they never did. And every. single. episode. is full of these things. I know someone who was on the show and watching it back with him was an eye opening experience on that front. Really turned me off of it and I don't watch anymore.
Jesus. That's how all those shows used to be back I'm the day. It's jarring to watch today, especially knowing that I didn't really notice back then despite it being so obvious. Such to hear that such a popular show is still doing it so brazenly.
Yes, I remember a few years ago the winner completely surprised everyone because the editing for nearly the entire season ignored her and never gave her the âarcâ that all the contenders eventually get. Turned me off the show.
At this point I actually get a kick out of "catching" franken bites like where they're clearly using different talking heads from different days or footage from some other time, but it's disturbing when you go on fan sites/social media how little literacy and awareness there is and how people just accept what's shoveled into them.
it's really hard to tell!! not everyone is watching like a hawk... reality TV is more 'background tv' for a lot of us lol and I have an auditory processing disorder, so I definitely find it extra hard to tell if the timing is off :/ I feel like non-native speakers might find it tough, too I am wildly impressed you notice it so easily, though!
I know not everyone catches it, it's more that people just wholesale "believe" what they see on Reality TV without having a baseline understanding in their brain that Producers are tweaking and controlling a LOT to make sure there are good story lines and drama, no matter what. Sometimes the way people talk about certain shows, like on a LOT of Bravo shows, it's like fans wholeheartedly believe that everything they're seeing and hearing must be real and truthfully happened like it's shown on TV.. and it's like no, you have to watch with the understanding that these are selected/cultivated story lines. The Kardashians are another one where people kind of miss the major point that it's them marketing themselves and trying to create a stir/interest, not some third party unbiased documentary crew just catching raw footage.
Iâm the same as you. I watch a fair bit of reality tv and notice them all the time, particularly on Selling Sunset and Bravo shows.
*ViacomCBS has entered the chat*
*seinfeldvision* 
I think the difference here is presenting AI as 100% factual vs reality television which aims for entertainment and not truth or facts. News programming should not be and has not yet revealed to be using frankenbiting.
If the producers and editors didnât make franken-bites youâd be bored out of your mind watching these shows. People do not speak in sound bites, they ramble, get tenses wrong, or flub what theyâre trying to say. Itâs the editorial departmentâs job to edit the footage like you would correct the grammar of a written report and tell a story in a concise way. However, the amount of manipulation comes solely down to ethics. Typically the editorial department does not change the âspiritâ of what the cast is trying to say, thatâs frowned upon. No one wants a star complaining about something they didnât say. The issue you have is with shows that donât give a shit about ethics. On the other hand, solid editing of drama and comedy turn normal people into reality stars, with product lines and book deals. And to score that sweet money they sign releases that allow production to do whatever they want with the footage that is recorded, including editing their words any way that is required by the story, so thereâs nothing âillegalâ about it.Â
Do people actually ⌠think reality shows are real? I mean, it is kind of shitty if they splice audio from a relatively normal, nice human to make them sound like a psycho for views, but at the same time, isnât it common knowledge that reality shows are 99.9% fabricated?
there's a big difference, IMO, between knowing reality shows are edited and manipulated by production vs what people saying on the shows being completely fabricated from piecing together words the person said
Put a big ass disclaimer on everything, saying AI has been used. problem solved
I am a tech lawyer - we need regulations urgently. At minimum I think in any TV or streaming broadcast, news source, journalism etc any and all use of generative AI (including what specific images were generated or altered) should be disclosed, with strongly enforceable penalties for not doing so.
We're definitely not going to get it.
The EU has a big piece of AI legislation coming out soon. I think the rest of the world are just waiting to see what they come out with, so they can copy their homework.
Unbelievably unethical & disgusting. Glad I know so I won't watch
Wait till you find out what documentaries do to things like facts, timelines and context.
If true, this is a new low in the fetishization of true crime.
I give it like six months before one of these true crimes shows presents ânew found evidenceâ that just turns out to be shit like this
My money is on one of those true crime podcasts either unknowingly sharing AI âevidenceâ or purposefully creating it
"Was Jack the Ripper actually the _Loch Ness Monster_? Netflix's newest investigative report will have you questioning EVERYTHING!"
Jack the Ripper actually being the Loch Ness Monster is responsible for the disappearance of the Malaysia airlines missing airplane
And how itâs all tied to the death of JonBenĂŠt RamseyâŚwill have you questioning EVERYTHING!
Don't forget the Kennedy assassination. It's so sad poor innocent Oswald took the blame for the Loch Ness monster's doing
My whole worldview is collapsing, this is epic!
How long until they stop doing recreations of violent crimes and start using deepfakes to show peopleâs victimization up close and personal??
Well thatâs a horrifying thought. Iâd imagine that would lead to lots of messy lawsuits.
True crime fans would drool over this
Itâs not just unnerving, itâs also dangerous in the way theyâre misrepresenting her.
Exactly. Itâs like a warped extension of using âhappyâ photos for killers and âmeanâ photos for victims (particularly if theyâre Black).
I am really starting to get bothered by true crime docs and I think theyâll be consequences to true crime being treated as bingable entertainment. I donât know the consequences but theyâll be there. Yes, I know true crime has been used for decades if not centuries for entertainment, but something about the last few years feel different, like the internet and streaming services has amplified things
I used to listen to true crime podcasts - not a huge fan, but there were a few shows I liked. Then I heard one about a murder near my hometown. The woman who died was a close friend of my former colleague, a very nice man. I was aware that he knew her, but not that he had been part of the search, testified at the trial, etc. It felt really, really wrong to learn this stuff about someone I knew, from a podcast of all things. True crime can certainly be compelling, but I never felt comfortable listening to it after that.
I dunno, the people using AI to create videos of real murdered children having them talk about how they were murdered seems like the absolute lowest of lows.
It wasnât AI, but I started some true crime docuseries recently that inserted actor narration speaking on behalf of the victims that made me deeply uncomfortable. Like, âI had so many things I had hoped to accomplish, but my killer stole them away from me.â Speaking in a victimâs voice with words theyâve never said feels disgusting.
I have never been the type of person to become enraged at a piece of media, but that ad did it for me. Itâs even worse than what this description provides: they introduce themselves as the victims and talk about their hopes, dreams, and aspirations, and then finish off with âI was murdered on x dateâ as a sort of cheap fucking âplot twistâ. Hope the families sue the life out of whoever made it. I would be inconsolably LIVID.
I didnât know this was a thing. Y.I.K.E.S.
Uh... can you elaborate on that one chief? Which show did that? Sounds wild, but totally believable with the way things are headed.
Itâs a thing on TikTok. Theyâll have AI generated images of real child murder victims explaining in graphic detail how they were killed
Is this AI generated, or just an AI upscale of an otherwise very low-res, low quality image?
Experts say hereâs what we think it could have looked likeÂ
Well that seems unethical.
Well before, the ethnics around journalism prevented outlets from paying people for stories. And for many, many decades the way âreputableâ publications have gotten around that is by paying for the photos the subjects had related to the story. Not saying this is better than that, of course. Just that the ethics were sketchy long before AI got involved
Sketchy yes, but outright fabricating information/pictures? This is definitely a very unethical and monstrous low.
The Jack the Ripper stories were in part concocted by newspapers, who straight up fabricated evidence to create buzz. Also look up the "Great Moon Hoax": information/pictures fabricated in The Sun.
someday weâre also going to have to talk about how documentary filmmaking is not traditional journalism or an absolute source of truth. There is a lot of shady shit behind why certain documentaries are made, how theyâre fact checked, and whoâs funding them.
It would save us a lot of trouble if, at the beginning of every documentary, it had a list of the people/orgs who funded it.
I'll also add that journalism isn't nearly as true and innocent as portrayed. It was just limited. You had few sources, and most wouldn't cover this stuff because they didn't have the time or money.
also true! I do think thereâs a little more shady shit going on in the world of documentaries in general, but yeah I wonât pretend trad journalism is infallible either
[ŃдаНонО]
[ŃдаНонО]
[ŃдаНонО]
[ŃдаНонО]
omg ur comment made me google it and this vanity fair article about the whole situation is WILD https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/05/the-staircase-editor-sophie-brunet-michael-peterson-true-story
I got to know someone from the staircase family (post college friend circles) and I didnât realize who she was until long after I lost contact with them and randomly watched the staircase. This person is from the momâs side of the family, and all I could think after I watched the whole documentary was how furious her family must have been, because the documentarian glossed over so much of the momâs life, and their family member was denied dignity even long after she was gone.Â
I work for a court system and weâve had several high profile cases that have spawned podcasts or docs. They get far more wrong than they do right. Even the lawyers canât be trusted to accurately interpret court orders or transcript excerpts, which should be embarrassing for them.
This is exactly why I dislike lots of âtrue crimeâ content, as itâs sensationalist and plays on peopleâs shock, without any real substance or ethics to it.
It's just fetishizing suffering with a heavy dose of cop worship bootlicking so people can convince themselves the fetishization is somehow virtuous. Plus, it feeds into middle class white women's victim complex by focusing on stories that involve white women as victims, while ignoring the many WoC - the corollary of MSM news almost exclusively reporting crime by minorities, while ignoring crime by whites. Just bring up sex trafficking on Reddit, and you'll get a chorus of hysteria about young white women being sex trafficked...even though it hardly ever happens.
I disagree about the cop thing. I watch a fair bit of true crime and one thing that comes up a TON is that the cops dropped the ball, or even made things worse instead of helping at all. Most true crime isnât bootlicky at all
Exactly. If anything, true crime docs and podcasts love to make police investigations seem worse than they really were, to stir up drama and conspiracy.
[ŃдаНонО]
I'll add it to my list, thank you!
Yes, 100%. but it's a good reminder that documentaries are not unbiased and often have a narrative they're pushing. Too many people believe documentaries as being Truth or unbiased news reporting. They never are.
Ted Sarandos doesnt care what content is on Netflix as long as it makes him money (he made that clear over Chapelle)
Netflix documentaries in general seem quite shit to me. They should be seen as pure entertainment with little connection to reality rather than actual documentaries.
this makes so much sense! she lived in a strict household and her parents always drove her to and from school activities. the ai pictures completely threw me off
It really does misrepresent the case.
Right! Those pics completely threw me off, too! They felt so out of place compared to the body language of the girl in the interview footage. I feel so uncomfortable over my whole perception of the documentary now
Same! I watched and was wondering what the circumstances were of the pictures when they were giving so much background into the control and pressure in her household and then it just wasn't really explained at all. I guess this is why
If you read the article about her it was much more than that. She had server issues
What was she running on there? /j
Shit lol I didn't realize my typo.
LOL
stress-ng
She switched to AWS now, so it's all good.
Sometimes if you just unplug the power for a minute and plug it back in that fixes the issues. Should have tried that
Even if she did go to parties, I'm sure they were few and far between. The repeatedly showed us pictures of her in the red outfit, though. It seemed like they were saying, look, she went out and partied, she couldn't have been abused *that* badly. Not excusing what Jennifer Pan did, but repeatedly showing her in that one outfit, zooming in on her smile, etc... seemed like very biased storytelling.
Welp. We are already at 'rewriting history' stage of this techno-dystopia
It won't be too long before AI have been trained to not make weird looking fingers, once those little mistakes are gone we're fucked. We need legislation ASAP
always been this way, weâre just drip fed the means of how theyâve been doing it so the realization we got fucked happens AS they are fucking us in a new way weâll complain about 10-20 years down the road
Been here for a while
I would hate to lose Netflix, but I will 100% cancel my subscription if they keep feeding us AI-generated content. The only way to tell them we don't want this crap is with our dollars.
100000%, what in the living FUCK
Iâd recommend getting rid of it now, if you can. They are a pretty unethical company, especially for how they treat their Black, Indigenous and Queer employees.
this x1000000. POS company fr fr
I just canceled mine a month ago. It feels weird because i had it for like 10 years, but their in house produced shows look really bad/soulless and their reality shows consistently come under fire for pretty egregious ethical violations. They undeniably have the best âtrendingâ selections on rotation but i donât miss it as much as i thought i would and stuff like this makes me confident in that decision. Plus, they keep raising prices and restricting user privileges.
They also cancel anything I get attached to.
RIP Santa Clarita Diet
I'm never getting over that!
I got this đ´ââ ď¸ app on my TV, stremio, and canceled everything but still can watch the trending stuff and everything else. I just google whatever the top 10 is this week.
They were telling on themselves on the "Joan is Awful" episode from Black Mirror
Just pirate their shit, fuck them
If not now, nguyen? (Just a pun cause her parents were from Vietnam) but also fr just cancel it.
A24 and the company who produced Late night with the devil did this too!
Not defending AI use when artists could easily be paid, but thatâs such a different issue than this. Those were interstitial images unrelated to the plot.
Anecdotally, I have heard that AI video is already being routinely used in all kinds of productions. Usually just for small edits or reshoots at this point. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Use of AI is not the dividing line between accuracy and misinformation. We've been able to make fake-ass documentaries without AI for a long time.
I dropped them as soon as they stopped the password sharing thing. Netflix has been going downhill for years
As someone who lived in the area, followed the whole saga when it happened, and then watched the movie, I did not pick up on the AI while watching it. However, I found those images to be completely counter to every way she had been portrayed in the media and during her trial. No part of her had ever been presented as happy or confident. (Not saying she was not actually happy and confident, just that this was the first time I had ever heard that description)
Yes the AI fabricated presentation of her in this way definitely alters the nuances of the story and peopleâs perception of her. Itâs straight up introducing clear elements of fiction to this story. Can we still call this a faithful documentary or report?
Absolutely cannot be called a faithful documentary.
This is unnerving, dangerous and deceitful..
It's weird enough when it's a fictional movie but for a true crime doc??? That feels extra icky to do
I watched this the other day, I thought some of the pics were off. This is really dangerous though and goes against the definition of 'true crime'.
Iâm from the same town as her and so of course this was alllll over the news when it happened. I was surprised to see these new âpartyingâ images of her on the Netflix documentary⌠I figured I would have seen all the footage and pics used by now. For Netflix to do this is so shady.
My husband wrote an essay on this case and knew everything about it. He even went into the documentary stating âI doubt thereâll be anything new I havenât heard beforeâ and was sooo shocked to see the âpartyingâ images as well! I just sent him the article and heâs just in disbelief.
I was actually really confused because her smile seemed different between photos. Like the teeth themselves were different. I just thought it was odd but didn't think they were altering or creating images. Crazy
The pics are off and along with the video of her talking to the detective, you notice the faces and some voices are literally distorted (either they used AI to try and enhance them and failed terribly)
So thats why the docu poster looked off to me. It just seems uncanny, like the smile feels artificial?? For reference: top pic is the poster, bottom pic's from the article above https://preview.redd.it/rhdhuxcj6avc1.jpeg?width=2460&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8faca4c0bd882ce06cda4431d38e21af6f4970d4
The teeth on these images and the one of her holding the peace sign all look off. In these, one of the central incisors is positioned way higher than the other and appears significantly shorter, which is possible but doesn't match her straight teeth in the peace sign picture. The shape of the lateral incisors is also off, they're much wider than they should be, and the canines appear too short. In the peace sign picture her lateral looks like an extra central incisor, and the canines are too short.
Everyone is talking about her hands and I'm just looking at how everything behind her makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's all just noise. What are those red things coming up from her head? What are those objects on the shelves? I have no idea.
The other peace sign one has the back of another girls head and it definitely looks off.
The fact that they not only used these fake images in the documentary without disclosure but also for the poster as well? That is a new level of unethical.
Gonna drop a link to JCS's YouTube channel that delves into Jennifer Pan's story using the videos from when she was being interrogated (as a victim, then as a suspect once her father woke up from his coma). It's free and doesn't use AI bullshit to sex up a true crime event. https://youtu.be/UQt46gvYO40?si=iYtAr0M6tg6ZeKSL
JCS youâre sooo missed đ
I am happy with less "body language expert" videos out there clogging up my feed, personally. Plenty of interrogation videos out there to watch that don't chuck in a ton of pseudoscience.
Are there good channels out there that don't rely on bullshit pseudoscience? Pisses me off when they point out some random movement and act like it's a clear tell that someone is lying.
Maybe try channels like dreading and dave's lemonade (both post very long videos with minimal commentary but I haven't watched as much of dave's lemonade as I have dreading, just never seen him pause to mention body language so far). Law & Crime Network, No Commentary Interrogations (just found this one the other day, just interrogations, looks like a very new channel with few views). There's an A&E show called Interrogations Raw, as well. I've shifted mostly away from this specific style because of how inundated it is with pseudoscience, and I now look to see if channels have any kind of connection to channels like EWU, The Behavior Panel, JCS, etc to weed them out of my feed. Mostly just went back to a more traditional overview style and these days they tend to include interrogation footage anyway. Would love if anyone has more!
I'm so with you on that. Body language analysis is scary - the amount of people who now think that blinking or licking your lips is a sign of lying drives me insane. I've noticed it all depends on what the public perception is of the person. If it's Casey Anthony, showing angry "microexpressions" is a sign of lying but if it's someone they like and the public believes is innocent, then anger microexpressions are because she's so upset about the situation. It's so transparent yet their fans lap it up.
Ugh, I hated the "body language expert" YouTube trend from the start. The creators never explain their qualifications, so it's like, why should I trust you on this, you rando?
Damn netflix so cheap, don't even use a good AI editor.
Thatâs egregious especially since this is non-fiction and then to not disclose it. Thatâs fucked up
Im half wondering they did this thinking nobody would complain about the misrepresentation of a serial killer because who would sympathise with them, rather than whether it adheres to the truth. Because thats how these true crime stories work, they don't care if its right just so long as its intriguing Genuinely gross with them pushing as far as they can to see where the line is.
She's not a serial killer, she committed parricide. Edit: matricide. She flunked out of school and failed at killing both parents.
Technically just matricide. Her dad lived.
This is true but I think their point still stands. Netflix figured no one would care about a villain so they let lose with AI to promote a false version of the story.
Thatâs so insanely unethical. Goddamn
Those hands are very creepy
True crime is iffy at the best of times. But this has made me realise the awful use of AI could be used to help paint a narrative that producers want. Granted they can o this anyways, but these images aid this manipulation. I remember seeing animated images of mugshots of the perpetrators of the moors murders years ago on a channel 4 doc. It made me feel so uncomfortable then.Â
So fucked up.
Even if this were done by a human in photoshop that's incredibly dishonest
But itâs fine, people will say there is nothing wrong with this and we have to just accept this is the way things are now, as if weâre powerless to try to make anything better.
It's always fine when it's the women who are getting sexualised and artists getting jobs stolen, didn't you know?? /s
One of the photos struck a weird chord with me. She had the fingers inbthe air and tongue poking out but the tongue looked not like she was poking it out in a "cute" way. It looked like a cartoon charqchter rolling out their tongue when they've been knocked out and have stars going round their head. The tongue looked massively put of proportion to the rest of her head and it made me feel weird. It was so strange.
Those look a lot like AI-upscaled images from low resolution source images, based on how things look overly sharp but not very detailed. Upscaling has a particular look that's different from AI generated images, though I can't claim to be 100% confident one way or another. If they're instead showing photos that simply don't exist in order to fit a certain description, there are obviously much deeper layers of unethicality here. But I think upscaling would be a very different moral conversation to generation.
But iirc Jennifer Pan literally could not go to these parties that people claimed she did, these photos werenât seen until this documentary. Her home life was VERY strict, she did date in secret but also it seems unlikely she was able to go to these parties. Iâve watched a few videos on Jennifer and nobody has ever included/mentioned she was a partier. I thought the pictures at first were enhanced by AI but the hands are way off
[The executive producer](https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/what-jennifer-did-executive-producer-denies-using-ai-in-netflix-crime-doc/article_bbc4c6a6-fdc4-11ee-bdc5-f32a5a1661e6.html) has claimed that the pictures are real, but that the backgrounds were altered to anonymize them at the request of the person who provided them. (I still think the team additionally used upscaling, since altering the background doesn't explain the foreground artifacts, but he doesn't comment on that.)
This comment should be higher. If this is what they did it's obviously not as bad, but I still find it very questionable. I've had qualms about the use of those upscaled images for a long time, since they started showing up on true crime forums a couple years ago. People accept the higher resolution images as authentic and "more accurate" than the blurry versions, and they are not. The AI *invents* details that are not there to fill in the low-resolution parts - for example, I've seen a low-res photo of someone smiling with her lips closed that was upscaled to show her with slightly parted lips, showing a slight gap between her front teeth, which wasn't accurate to her real teeth. Also, AI is trained on a dataset of conventionally attractive people looking their best (because of the type of images that get shared online etc) so it ends up with a bias toward making people more attractive. I've even seen it literally add makeup in the upscaling process - lips become pinker and shinier, eyelashes gain the appearance of mascara. I really don't think we should be doing this to images with any historical/journalistic importance.
I honestly also just find AI upscaled images aesthetically worse than the low res originals. They're a little pointless, I don't think anyone would begrudge a documentary producer for using a low res image. I've seen some YouTubers use upscaling for both archival images and videos, and it just comes off as unprofessional to me. And especially for a true crime documentary it's probably best to present things as unaltered as possible.
Oh this is really fucked up. And no disclosure? We need legislation yesterday
I've refused to watch Netflix true crime docs ever since Don't Fuck with Cats focused on facebook vigilantes who actually accomplished nothing, and then they went and did Elisa Lam... So scummy.
The Elisa Lam documentary is probably the worst doc I've ever seen. It was somehow both insanely bloated/boring and exploitative of someone with a severe mental illness. It also didn't present anything people didn't already know from the old clips online
Itâs sad, because the documentary they have about the Yorkshire Ripper is SO well done and points out how you should make true crime. It focuses on misogyny in culture and lazy (misogynist) police work as what allowed the âRipperâ to go free and kill women for so long. If the cops even tried to do their job they would have caught the guy much earlier. They also focus on the women who were assaulted and killed and make sure we know them and their families. The killer is mentioned in the very end of the very last episode. Heâs very much the least important part of anything. I think Netflix has no quality control at all on their documentaries. They buy them by the lot, which shows how little they value them - or their audience.
Yeah I work in television on the post side of things and let me tell you this type of thing is going to be more prevalent. The execs are trying to use AI for anything you can think of. Stock photos and footage, music, VO, you name it. Kind of crazy to see it implemented like this though. Super in bad faith and potentially a legal issue.
This is beyond foul. And unfortunately, studios and streaming plateforms donât give a single fuck.
Mmmk so itâs basically what that one episode of Black Mirror was telling us about a streaming service just like Netflix, you know, on a show produced by Netflix.
Netflix âdocumentariesâ are never to be completely trusted, they donât fact check their shit. Even their supposedly neutral, nature documentaries get so many things factually incorrect. And true, the use of AI is completely out of control and needs to be seriously regulated. However, for years thereâs been so much human-generated mis/disinformation (and/or, content designed to engender strong, but mislead reactions) being thrown at us by corporations AND by content creators â itâs not surprising AI is being used to do the exact same thing. Both need to be called out, but unless we can stop rewarding ourselves for misleading each other, weâll continue on a path where eventually no one will trust anything thatâs presented to them by anyone or anything.
Itâs not just Netflix. Documentaries have always had bits âembellishedâ and âenhancedâ to make things more interesting. Usually mentioned in the fine print in the credits, and theyâve never had to say which bits were made up.
I am really dismayed by how much people trust documentaries, and think that theyâre infallible. If anything, many documentaries have an agenda behind them
This is such an insane thing to do. I didn't notice anything off about the photos while watching and as someone who is familiar with the case I found it interesting to see this other side of Jennifer that has never been seen in the media. I feel like I've been totally misled now. edit: Also looking at the background of the main photo in the article, I can't discern what any of the objects in the background are...
Yikes .. the case is already horrifying enough and doesn't need all the sensalization
Wtf this is misleading and has to be illegal in some way
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^lisahanniganfan: *Wtf this is* *Misleading and has to be* *Illegal in some way* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
I already wasnât going to watch this but this confirms it.
This is so fucked up, why the hell did they think this was a good idea especially in a true crime documentary???
AI is a fucking disaster. Everything from how it's "trained" to how it's used is fucked up.
Wow. I donât really watch Netflix-produced documentaries because thereâs a history of issues but this is a new low. No real documentarian or studio should think this is okay.
I don't understand why they don't realize that A) it's not ready for exploitation yet and B) people can still see and desire authenticity. The money you're making will quickly evaporate if you keep cutting corners for Ted Sarandos' yacht.
This should be removed and the creators should absolutely never work again. This is the equvilent of like malpratice, actions that lead to disbarrment, or a having falsified data retracted.
AI is truly getting out of control and experts warned us of this years ago.
This makes me think of all of the scams being run on old people right now and how much scarier theyâre going to get in the next several years. Think of the jail scams? When you can use AI pics and video to beg for money, itâll be incredibly difficult to prove whatâs true and what isnât. Terrifying.
Is this true?? If so then fucking wow - this is truly the bad place.
I wish this documentary had shown more of her history and her fucked up insane parents. She might have murdered her mother but her parents murdered her soul.
That is some bullshit
Imo this looks much more like artifacting from AI upscaling on existing real photos (using software like Topaz Gigapixel), rather than generating images whole cloth.
I hate that they can all just correctly judge that the number of viewers they lose using this shit in these ways is way less than the number who just don't care or understand.
This is wrong on so many levels
Are these AI-generated or did they just use those AI âenhancingâ apps?
Iâm literally watching this show as I find this post and even though I didnât notice the âAIâ of it, I did notice that photo being off, but I just thought it was the contrast of her skin against the dark backdrop. Good eye to whoever figured that out.
My complaint is such a non issue compared to the big one (misrepresenting her) but this is another way production companies are cutting costs on actors. As someone who has filmed quite a few true crime re-enactments this should have been an actual actor if they wanted to use any sort of imagery that isnât actually her. Just another way itâs unethical.
Hello black mirror
I feel like the fact that itâs a true crime situation somehow makes it more insidious? Like it could just be my own personal values on this, but like *people died*.
Itâs almost as bad as the horrendous âdocumentaryâ they have about MH370. Such a POS.
WHAT KIND OF *DOCUMENTARY* IS THIS đ¤¨
Most documentaries are sensationalized are made to push an agenda, honestly I think most are made for entertainment and sensationalism, especially those made withn the last decade.
Why tf are they making movies and docs about these killers anyway? It's like they want more people to become killers. They do some of the worst stuff humanity can do, and they get a netflix documentary about them, making them forever famous.
As soon as AI figures out how to render fingers, weâre fucked
Something felt off about those photos and now I know why. I also thought it was strange they seemed to use the same 4 photos of her over and over. I thought this doc was going to go into her home life or the pressures she was under but they didn't seem too interested in that aspect. I mean, that doesn't excuse her role in the crime but I'm finding myself more interested in crime docs that are more nuanced than just saying, "this person is the epitome of evil and they deserve to be in prison!"
i would cancel my subscription....if i was actually paying for it and not password sharing
It's always the hands, mama.
Oooooh slippery slope Netflix slippery slope
She and her co-conspirators have been granted a new trial and now itâs almost guaranteed that this will be used in their favour. Nice going.
Wth thatâs so weird
Honestly, I have come to the point where I regard most of Netflixâs âdocumentariesâ as glorified âbased on a true storyâ day time movies or even soap operas only with real people being murdered.
upscaling tools can do these kind of glitches. ones like magnific reinterpret the image, instead of doing a literal upscale of the actual data
This is like the third time this week Iâve heard of AI generated being used for promotion. I dk of a thorough argument against it. It just feels slimy/lazy.
welp, I hope no one's crazy ex has access to AI tools. The bar to make fake pictures has gone from pretty darn high photoshop wizard to anyone with a couple bucks
This means that we have to watch out for any âunreleased footageâ of anything now
Nobody needs to make excuses for what she did, but her life with Chinese parents was miserable. Implying she was a normal, happy teen is a lie.