comment: >
  
  Is there a reason in your mind that an AI plus a decent printer couldn’t replicate handwriting?
context: I think this is a lot like arguing that Photoshop necessitates a return to physical Polaroid cameras.
  Once Photoshop came to exist, doctored photos became essentially indistinguishable from real ones, and we could not necessarily trust our own eyes.
  Did we therefore say "Well, this is useless" and return to showing each other photo albums?
  No, we just decided to rely on critical thinking and some basic standards of what is and isn't acceptable to do.
  And... that's probably what we'll continue to do. >
  
  Maybe not Polaroid but there's absolutely a resurgence of 35mm/120 film use among journalists who want to be able to "prove" their final image with the negative to show for it. It's possible to doctor a darkroom print, but the negative will always show what has been done. >
  
  If this ever actually became an issue, cameras that securely digitally sign the output of their sensors are trivial to make and 1000x more secure than that. >
  
  What do you mean actually an issue? Deep fakes have been around a while. A digital signature would be just as easy for an AI to forge. >
  
  It could forge a signature, but not a valid one using the keys protected within the hardware of the camera. 
  If it could, our entire internet world would fall apart. >
  
  Suggesting it hasn't already? >
  
  In this context, “signature” is referring to cryptography. If that was broken then you everything would stop working. Online banking would be impossible, every website would be compromised because your username and password would be clear to anyone watching, etc. 
   
  AI can’t forge signatures. >
  
  It is likely that something will need to be done, but returning to the Stone Age isn’t one of them. 
  I predict that sources will start cryptographically signing content they produce. This is already possible, just not wide spread, and we just need easy to use tools to easily verify. This isn’t too much different than how the web uses HTTPS to ensure you are not visiting a spoofed website. 
  By cryptographically signing a image, video, or text you can be certain of the source of something. And if someone were to change that source later (even cropping or changing one letter) then the signature would fail so you would know that it has been tampered with in some way. The only way to maintain the valid signature is to redistribute the material 100% as-is. 
  Content from untrusted sources would not be able to fake legitimate signatures, so depending on how wide spread signing becomes, it would be easy to identify dubious content. >
  
  AI can do all those things too, you know. AI can 'hand write' stuff, AI can do physical art, AI has already replaced a bunch of manual labor. >
  
  Ai can write on a note and give it to you?
  AI cannot really do any physical art in a general sense. Nor can it do manual labor in a general sense. It is limited by robotics which is lagging badly behind. >
  
  AI can absolutely 'hand-write' a note in a professional setting, yes. 
  What do you mean by 'in a general sense'? >
  
  How could AI physically write you a hand written note? >
  
  With a pen? It can write in a way that few, if any, people could tell it was written by a robot. >
  
  I mean yeah if you have the hardware available obviously. However that is a significant bareier to entry as opposed to digital. You are also limited by laws of physics so you cannot write 15 billion letters per second. >
  
  Sure. But it's definitely more efficient than a human person handwriting, even if it's worse than the computer just putting everything in a text document or whatever. >
  
  Yeah but in say an office setting you would know if someone randomly has some crazy hand writing machine. >
  
  I mean, sure, but why are you delivering hand written notes in an office setting so often that it is an important skill? >
  
  
  This includes physical art, writing on paper, to labor where skilled physical labor will be premium replacing cognitive work which will essentially have no value.
  
  The value in art isn't the labor that goes into it. It's what someone is willing to pay for it. You can have an extremely skillful masterpiece worth nothing because nobody likes it, and some quick garbage worth millions because some idiots want it. >
  
  What value could something possibly have that. 1: Takes 1 second to make with no effort. 2: you can easily recreate in 1 second? Why buy when you could just have the AI make the same thing for you? >
  
  When people buy digital assets like that, they generally aren't buying the data itself, but copyright. >
  
  Can you really copyright something an AI made for you? >
  
  I think that's a legal question yet to be resolved. >
  
  
  Meaning the internet will be flooded with ai generative content that is indistinguishable from «real», from text to video and everything in between.
  
  The internet is already full of fiction anyways, and basically always has been. Photos and videos can be - and frequently are - edited. Fake News are a major concern. So all this does is add more content, especially fictional content.
  
  As you can then no longer trust anything represented as bits in computer memory this will mean all digital content corresponding value will rapidly decrease to near 0. 
  
  I doubt this. Author verification is still possible, thanks to cryptographic keys and trusted sources. You can still go to people behind content, people that have earned your trust, or institutions that have earned your trust.
  
  This then means in my opinion we are returning to the physical world ceding the digital world to the machines. 
  
  Why would this be the case? The physical world won't offer anything new either. We've left it behind in many ways for a reason. Every physical document can already be forged trivially, social context already matters more than paper.
  
  This includes physical art, writing on paper
  
  Printers can do that better than people. Much better.
  
  to labor where skilled physical labor will be premium replacing cognitive work which will essentially have no value.
  
  AI doesn't work by itself. Directing AI, programming and training AI, knowing how to properly use it will still be extremely valuable cognitive work. For the AI to give you what you want, you first have to know what you want. 
  Added to this is sorting out trash. Much of what AI does is bad, because AI doesn't understand "good" or "bad". You need people for that. >
  
  Digital signature 
  
  A digital signature is a mathematical scheme for verifying the authenticity of digital messages or documents. A valid digital signature, where the prerequisites are satisfied, gives a recipient very high confidence that the message was created by a known sender (authenticity), and that the message was not altered in transit (integrity). Digital signatures are a standard element of most cryptographic protocol suites, and are commonly used for software distribution, financial transactions, contract management software, and in other cases where it is important to detect forgery or tampering.
  
  ^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5) >
  
  If anything, AI will make it trivial to forge handwritten documents. 
  To start, the Autopen has existed for over 200 years. Here is an example of the capabilities of a current Autopen. Sorry for the video, TL;DW: can reproduce long documents in your own handwriting via computer interface.
  A hand writing model AI would presumably reproduce the variable pressure of pen strokes, and reproduce the "flowing" between characters without needing a large sample of input writing. Furthermore, in introduces the possibility to include variations of the strokes/pressure/flow such that repeated output is not an identical copy like a typical font would output.
  Without AI, we have a system requiring large amounts of input, in order to create a non unique output, inconsistent with true hand writing. With AI, a system will require much less input data, and create unique output more consistent with true hand writing.
  
  As you can then no longer trust anything represented as bits in computer memory this will mean all digital content corresponding value will rapidly decrease to near 0.
  
  I don't think you should automatically trust anything represented by binary values in computer memory. This could easily be a huge explanation, but I think that would detract from the current discussion, so I'll keep it short. Anyways, the binary values are an abstraction, in that any individual bit may be set to any chosen value (0 or 1). A binary value can be digitally signed, such that it becomes apparent if any bit has been changed, but that is not a guarantee that the binary data is a true representation of the original information. You need to trust the source of the data, not the data itself. In short, digital content will not necessarily lose value, rather the amount of digital content with no value will increase. >
  
  Autopen 
  
  An autopen (or signing machine) is a device used for the automatic signing of a signature. Prominent individuals may be asked to provide their signatures many times a day, such as celebrities receiving requests for autographs, or politicians signing documents and correspondence in their official capacities. Consequently, many public figures employ autopens to allow their signature to be printed on demand and without their direct involvement. Though manual precursors of the modern autopen have existed since at least 1803, 21st-century autopens are machines that are programmed with a signature, which is then reproduced by a motorized, mechanical arm holding a pen.
  
  ^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5) >
  
  We already have machines to mimic hand writing, from a simple plotter with a pen to specialized machines that fluidly mimic a signature.
  Most are simple, but you can be damn sure that as soon as it is economically profitable someone will further capitalize on the concept. >
  
  
  As you can then no longer trust anything represented as bits in computer memory
  
  Wouldn't it make more sense to dismantle the AI if things are so bad that nothing can be trusted? >
  
  Will make some people unfathomably rich. So why would you? >
  
  Why would the owners of the AI be getting rich, if (as you say) the product of the AI has 0 value? These two thoughts you have seem to flatly contradict each other.
  Either AI-generated content has value, so we DON'T go back to physical handicraft, or it has NO value, so the owners of the AI do not get any money. >
  
  It will have enormous value for the 1-2 entities that control the AI. Imagine a subscription service that works like a chatgpt that is always correct and can generate all sorts of media on demand. Sounds like a winner to me, it will effectively kill the entertainment industry. Reforge the internet to a centralized space for these entities that control these AIs. >
  
  
  Imagine a subscription service that works like a chatgpt that is always correct and can generate all sorts of media on demand. Sounds like a winner to me
  
  You're basically acknowledging that the digital output of the AI has enormous, widespread value, and the owners can charge a mint. I agree with you. However, this seems to flatly contradict your original post:
  
  "As you can then no longer trust anything represented as bits in computer memory this will mean all digital content corresponding value will rapidly decrease to near 0"
  
  So, which is it? Digital work sells for big bucks? Or has no value? You can't consistently believe both. >
  
  Well it would certainly make any human generated content worthless. Also you could in theory then just generate a video of biden shooting a dog or something. How could anyone know it is real or not? >
  
  Let's settle this question first:
  Would digital work sell for large amounts of money? Or have no value? What do you believe?
  Take your time to think about it if you need to. >
  
  If I were to ask the AI to make me something, could I then sell it? No. Who would buy it and why? >
  
  Have you tried? And have you tried selling artwork you, yourself, created? >
  
  Would you buy something that took someone 1 sec to create that you also easily could recreate with no effort in one second? >
  
  I think it's true that that we will devalue things that AI can do - it'll at least be commodified and value will approach zero as you say.  However, this doesn't point us toward handwriting other than perhaps as an art-form.  Writing by any means is primarily about communication and the medium it takes place in is not important.  I think we'll see more value on things like massage, talk therapy, face-to-face experiential things and so on.  Handwriting might have charm,  but ultimately it's either valued for that charm and only that or it'll be just a great example of how humans can't compete with AI because their methods are so inefficient. >
  
  if the world is going to get more digital and robotic, we will probably be typing more than handwriting. handwriting will probably fall out of date, actually. >
  
  If hand written text ever became as highly valued as you describe, we would just have machines imitate it for profit. >
  
  I think information literacy will just become more important. You still need good sources for anything important. I.e. not YouTube "experts". We are already there rn. I do think handwritten is making a comeback in education because you learn better that way >
  
  
  As you can then no longer trust anything represented as bits in computer memory this will mean all digital content corresponding value will rapidly decrease to near 0.  
  This then means in my opinion we are returning to the physical world ceding the digital world to the machines.
  
  Two main issues here - first off, value is in the eyes of the beholder; I don't care whether my entertainment, news, or anything comes from a person or from an AI, I will value it equally. Secondly, you make a wild-ass leap from "The internet will be full of AI stuff" to "we will give up using digital technology". Why would the internet being full of AIs mean we suddenly want to start writing with quills and parchment and stuff? >
  
  There are already somewhat convincing “handwriting” fonts.
  These new AI technologies will be able to generate convincing handwriting pretty easily, I should think.