comment: >
  
  Suggesting it hasn't already?
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.