comment: >
  
  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.
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.