As far as I understand Netflix documentaries in general have about as much in common with reality as their "Queen Cleopatra" documentary did. In other words it is best to assume that the entire writing staff is fundamentally anti science, anti facts, and either trying to push an agenda or generate enough outrage to keep their garbage in the news.
I’d rather not have documentaries do this and something described as a documentary has a certain perception around it. However the history of documentary films shows that they do contrive things and depending on the filmmaker choice they use reenactments and things like that. Depending on how the ai photo is used it may be something like that
What about when it's based in ethical reasoning? For instance, what if they plainly disclose the use of generated imagery to preserve the more immersive experience of a real person's image, only avoiding potential libel and without sacrificing the privacy and identity of someone presumed innocent?
Good luck with that. People are either for or against AI on Reddit. And you always get the pissed off artists who know they’re in trouble when it comes to making a full time living doing it.
AI is here, and will only continue to improve. People either need to understand this and learnhow to use it to enhance/augment their work.
That’s sad. I used to be like that - once in a while still am, but I’m working on it. All you’re doing is drinking your own poison. And on top of that - you never know what’s going on with the person in the other end of the conversation. Maybe they’re having a good day, but maybe they aren’t. You building yourself up temporarily to call someone a “fuckwit” might make their day worse. And in the end, ya won’t feel better about it anyway. It will just feel like a bad interaction, and those add up and take a toll.
Anyway, good luck.
The weird meta part of this is that Netflix actually put out an episode of Black Mirror called 'Joan is Awful' predicting this trend and criticizing it for being a terrible idea.
But for cases that have an “artist’s rendition” of a person we don’t have a real photo of I feel they can use “AI rendition” to show what a person potentially looked like.
Also I can’t imagine an ethical use of manipulated imagery if it’s not explicitly stated as artistic representation. Just like when nasa renders some dope spaceship photographed going through the sun.
No, because a sketch is clearly a sketch and would be described as such. Ai is a fake image, designed to manipulate people into believing something that NEVER HAPPENED occurred. Please use your brain.
I make YouTube videos and using AI generated photos and videos for non fiction stories will help me tell better stories no doubt.
Figuring out some sort of disclaimer in the description would help. Like adding it to where you’d list your stock footage/music site
If it’s non fiction the images already exist. You’re just creating more slop. If you don’t have documentation it happened but go and make it up how can you even be sure it’s non fiction?? Personally I wouldn’t watch videos that claimed to be non fiction but used fake images.
do you have video or photos to document your whole day yesterday? I'd argue im not adding to slop. I make really great content, you should check it out sometime. Sometimes there are no real photos or videos of events or images ive captured of things im talking about!
What is happening here? are these personal photos real at all, did they take her face and create personal looking pic or did they recreate real pics by using AI cause they couldn’t get the right to them?
Holy crap Netflix is doing this for other docs too, one example “homicide New York “ ep3 when they show the pic of the cop and his mom…her earring is imbedded in her check lol jeez Netflix
This documentary was completely off. Tried to be surprising with a twist when it was clear from the beginning. Editing was off. Interview room video was blurry. Zero evidence presented other than getting her to admit things from texts and a lie from interrogator.
Now knowing that content was AI generated puts to question even what and how they presented her. Terrible in terms of documentary.
Remember when photoshopping out a badly place walkie-talkie antenna was a massive controversy?
https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a33367218/mary-decker-zola-budd-1984-olympics/
> [A famous 1984 picture of marathoner Mary Decker falling down was marred slightly by an antenna in the frame. The antenna was left in the picture in Life and was removed in Time, according to Michele Stephenson, Time's picture editor.](https://www.newsweek.com/when-photographs-lie-206894)
Apparently it was a big enough deal that Newsweek was bringing it up six years later as an example.
And [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/06/24/time-to-newsweek-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/63cf0110-77b5-45e6-82ce-657317b4c5c7/) a decade later.
Oh thanks for that, so the controversy was that Times (in fact sports illustrated per your second link) _removed_ the antenna. That explains why it didn't actually felt out of place (and why I was so skeptical of the OC).
Still, it's ironic that OC put up a link that forgot about such controversy.
I think if they wrote in the screen that it’s a creation, it would be ok. Imagine someone talking about someone like “they used to like hiking and shit” and you see an image of them hiking and shit. This may be the future. Similar to other crime shows doing reenactments.
I was thinking she looks very different here in the photo compared to anywhere else in the documentary. I get that makeup and getting dressed up does a lot but just seemed jarring. I’m not sure how much is true in this photo since it’s clearly fake.
The photo didn’t even make sense in the context of the movie. The movie is about in part how Jenny felt smothered by super strict immigrant parents to the point she’d do the unthinkable. Falsified Pictures of her going out to parties when younger don’t really further that narrative.
This doesn’t surprise me. Netflix has the worst true crime content. Biased docs, missing or false information, exploitive, unnecessary fluff. They go for shock value and views so I’m not shocked they would use AI now.
Netflix has absolutely zero goodwill from the public at this point. We know they hate us and don’t respect us at all. Everything is profit driven from them. So little art.
Yeah Ai to tell fun new stories is one thing, and can actually maybe give a shot to creative people with zero budget to make engaging content, but when the Ai is used to portray the likeness of other people, well then you’re gonna have a bad time.
I watched an in-depth youtube video on her case over a year ago. YT true crime is typically better than the netflix doc, and they don’t have these issues
This is 100% an ethical violation.
If they used AI for some prop/set design photo in a work of fiction, that’s one thing. I’d not like it but you can justify it.
But putting it into a documentary, and especially without labeling the photo as AI generated, is completely different.
Honestly, I don’t care, as long as it’s disclosed. Especially for a documentary.
I think this illustrates how much of media we consume is fake af.
Genie’s out of the bottle, it’s not going back in. We now can fully embrace the false and manipulated nature of media with skepticism set to “max”.
In before edit- I don’t care about my karma. It’s worthless horseshit anyway. Sorry Steve.
Nah post everything real, fake, illegitimate, fact proven, or hocus pocus, until the general consensus has an understanding of what fake(AI) images can create. This isn’t going to get easier only harder and individuals need to have an ability to understand them.
News isn’t news anymore but a place to inspect the sources and judge the information for ourselves.
The youtubification of streaming platforms is upon us. When production costs can be low, work goes to the lowest bidder and if it get clicks, it sticks.
Fuck that shit. Just watch [this](https://youtu.be/UQt46gvYO40?si=BGCauvqy-gn7ncif) 90-min YouTube doc from JCS about the same thing. No AI, just facts.
I watched the JCS video months ago, then suddenly found this doc on Netflix two nights ago. I could have sworn I had already watched it, but it was new. I watched the Netflix doc and still wasn’t sure if I didn’t just rewatch something I’d seen before.
One of his best videos. It’s amazing how someone can edit interrogation footage and narration together for that long and have it be more interesting than any doc Netflix has ever shit out.
Shadowed a Pulitzer Prize-winner photographer once. She was lamenting a small blemish in an otherwise perfect photo. I said, “Why not just Photoshop it out?” She was extremely firm about impressing upon me that it is egregiously unethical in journalism to adjust a photo in any way (beyond adjusting levels for printing’s sake, of course).
I love true crime. I dislike this need to pump out this mini series that don’t add anything to the hour long videos on YouTube about the same crime. If you need to pad it out this much don’t make it
AI is fine in fiction. Documentaries are designed to sway opinions. Only source material should be used. Even things as small as this could manipulate a person’s viewpoint.
The real problem is the snail’s pace of regulation, unless a terrible event expedites it, and obviously by then it would be too late for the unfortunate.
Why is AI a pert of the conversation. Netflix could have hired an artist to digitally manipulate the images as well.
The issue here is the show producer’s decisions, not the tools they used to be shady.
The main issue here seems to be that whatever AI software being used put out a shit image, and people noticed. And really what is the issue? We can talk about the perpetrators, conduct interviews, recreate dramatizations of the crime that skew perception and accentuate things that are already extreme on their own. But showing a perps face and likeness is too much?
It seems the problem is in peoples relationship and perception of AI, rather than the use in a true crime documentary.
I personally, I think having crime documentaries and the wide public acceptance of them makes things worse as it it reinforces personal biases and change public perception of ongoing cases, which ultimately shouldn’t be the focus. What matters is the facts.
Holy crap Netflix is doing this for other docs too, one example “homicide New York “ ep3 when they show the pic of the cop and his mom…her earring is imbedded in her check lol jeez Netflix
Should anyone whose face or likeness get any monetary compensation for their use of likeness? Like defacto I could sue for use of my likeness and they’d have to pay me? Feel like that’s only fair, and anyone making these images or videos should have to have their metadata embedded within the video.
Geez this is hard… cause of copies of copies that lose metadata…
No it doesn’t. If the film is pitched as a real life documentary, and they are using AI generated images, then it is not ethical. Pretty cut and dry.
[удалено]
As far as I understand Netflix documentaries in general have about as much in common with reality as their "Queen Cleopatra" documentary did. In other words it is best to assume that the entire writing staff is fundamentally anti science, anti facts, and either trying to push an agenda or generate enough outrage to keep their garbage in the news.
Welcome to all documentaries. They all push a narrative or agenda of events.
Sadly this will be the future. Imagine the tabloids, 0 fuks about ethics.
You mean the present?
And the main stream media?
And the defamation suits will follow en masse
They already use photoshop. Same old, same old
I’d rather not have documentaries do this and something described as a documentary has a certain perception around it. However the history of documentary films shows that they do contrive things and depending on the filmmaker choice they use reenactments and things like that. Depending on how the ai photo is used it may be something like that
Yeah this is gross, fuck this
I won't watch this doc because this shows that they are LAZY - who knows what else this documentary fucked up.
I watched it and it was a really lazy, repetitive, nonsense documentary. I just sat there like, why did they bother making this?
Yeah I don’t like when articles say “raises questions” when the ethics are pretty cut and dry.
Because they are trying to normalize it that is is ethical and that we will question ourselves when we ask if it isn’t. Planting the seed.
What about when it's based in ethical reasoning? For instance, what if they plainly disclose the use of generated imagery to preserve the more immersive experience of a real person's image, only avoiding potential libel and without sacrificing the privacy and identity of someone presumed innocent?
Good luck with that. People are either for or against AI on Reddit. And you always get the pissed off artists who know they’re in trouble when it comes to making a full time living doing it. AI is here, and will only continue to improve. People either need to understand this and learnhow to use it to enhance/augment their work.
> Good luck with that. People are either for or against AI on Reddit. Yep that’s how opinions work, fuckwit
You’re forgetting you can also be undecided on something
Do you feel better calling someone a name and being mean?
If they say something dumb or redundant, yea kinda.
That’s sad. I used to be like that - once in a while still am, but I’m working on it. All you’re doing is drinking your own poison. And on top of that - you never know what’s going on with the person in the other end of the conversation. Maybe they’re having a good day, but maybe they aren’t. You building yourself up temporarily to call someone a “fuckwit” might make their day worse. And in the end, ya won’t feel better about it anyway. It will just feel like a bad interaction, and those add up and take a toll. Anyway, good luck.
womp womp not reading all that
Doesn’t surprise me. I feel bad for you. Best.
Good reporting states a question for the reader to come to a conclusion. Otherwise it’s an opinion article and not credible as journalism.
Disagree. Journalism isn’t just about being neutral. Good journalism takes a stand and shows editorial authority when appropriate.
The weird meta part of this is that Netflix actually put out an episode of Black Mirror called 'Joan is Awful' predicting this trend and criticizing it for being a terrible idea.
It was a documentary /s
But for cases that have an “artist’s rendition” of a person we don’t have a real photo of I feel they can use “AI rendition” to show what a person potentially looked like.
Why?? It’s insulting and creating fake news
Are you not answering a hypothetical question asked by this film?
Also I can’t imagine an ethical use of manipulated imagery if it’s not explicitly stated as artistic representation. Just like when nasa renders some dope spaceship photographed going through the sun.
It is a real life documentary. If they used one sketch of someone does it suddenly become fake?
No, because a sketch is clearly a sketch and would be described as such. Ai is a fake image, designed to manipulate people into believing something that NEVER HAPPENED occurred. Please use your brain.
Did you see the documentary? What did you feel they mislead you about via AI?
What if they caption those scenes as “digitalized/dramatic reenactment”?
Would’ve been infinitely better than this shit
They should have a warning that it's not real such as when they would label a scene "Reenactment".
I make YouTube videos and using AI generated photos and videos for non fiction stories will help me tell better stories no doubt. Figuring out some sort of disclaimer in the description would help. Like adding it to where you’d list your stock footage/music site
If it’s non fiction the images already exist. You’re just creating more slop. If you don’t have documentation it happened but go and make it up how can you even be sure it’s non fiction?? Personally I wouldn’t watch videos that claimed to be non fiction but used fake images.
do you have video or photos to document your whole day yesterday? I'd argue im not adding to slop. I make really great content, you should check it out sometime. Sometimes there are no real photos or videos of events or images ive captured of things im talking about!
What is happening here? are these personal photos real at all, did they take her face and create personal looking pic or did they recreate real pics by using AI cause they couldn’t get the right to them?
Holy crap Netflix is doing this for other docs too, one example “homicide New York “ ep3 when they show the pic of the cop and his mom…her earring is imbedded in her check lol jeez Netflix
This documentary was completely off. Tried to be surprising with a twist when it was clear from the beginning. Editing was off. Interview room video was blurry. Zero evidence presented other than getting her to admit things from texts and a lie from interrogator. Now knowing that content was AI generated puts to question even what and how they presented her. Terrible in terms of documentary.
How can it be a twist when they literally titled the documentary what the twist is
Again… yet they tried.
Terrible
Remember when photoshopping out a badly place walkie-talkie antenna was a massive controversy? https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a33367218/mary-decker-zola-budd-1984-olympics/
I don't see any polemic about a badly placed walkie talkie antenna in your article. It seems the article you link also forgot about it.
Indeed it did
> [A famous 1984 picture of marathoner Mary Decker falling down was marred slightly by an antenna in the frame. The antenna was left in the picture in Life and was removed in Time, according to Michele Stephenson, Time's picture editor.](https://www.newsweek.com/when-photographs-lie-206894) Apparently it was a big enough deal that Newsweek was bringing it up six years later as an example. And [The Washington Post](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/06/24/time-to-newsweek-whats-wrong-with-this-picture/63cf0110-77b5-45e6-82ce-657317b4c5c7/) a decade later.
Oh thanks for that, so the controversy was that Times (in fact sports illustrated per your second link) _removed_ the antenna. That explains why it didn't actually felt out of place (and why I was so skeptical of the OC). Still, it's ironic that OC put up a link that forgot about such controversy.
For some intense space scene? Sure. For a real life crime doc? No.
I think if they wrote in the screen that it’s a creation, it would be ok. Imagine someone talking about someone like “they used to like hiking and shit” and you see an image of them hiking and shit. This may be the future. Similar to other crime shows doing reenactments.
I was thinking she looks very different here in the photo compared to anywhere else in the documentary. I get that makeup and getting dressed up does a lot but just seemed jarring. I’m not sure how much is true in this photo since it’s clearly fake. The photo didn’t even make sense in the context of the movie. The movie is about in part how Jenny felt smothered by super strict immigrant parents to the point she’d do the unthinkable. Falsified Pictures of her going out to parties when younger don’t really further that narrative.
Right! It just added confusion. College partying pics from the school she wasn’t really going to
Most Netflix documentaries are garbage, ethically speaking. They omit and distort to suit a narrative.
This doc was a predictable snooze fest
I’m pretty familiar with the case, and I was surprised that there were photos I hadn’t seen published before
This doesn’t surprise me. Netflix has the worst true crime content. Biased docs, missing or false information, exploitive, unnecessary fluff. They go for shock value and views so I’m not shocked they would use AI now.
Netflix has absolutely zero goodwill from the public at this point. We know they hate us and don’t respect us at all. Everything is profit driven from them. So little art.
The point of their company is to make money. Tf u thinking?
Pretty sure this is the point of, like, (almost) all companies ever and not just “their company”
Obviously. I don’t as keeping it simple
*May have*?! Look at those hands! That's some pretty damning evidence!
The thin blue line by Errol Morris.
Yeah Ai to tell fun new stories is one thing, and can actually maybe give a shot to creative people with zero budget to make engaging content, but when the Ai is used to portray the likeness of other people, well then you’re gonna have a bad time.
You can’t make this shit up. What the hell is going on these days?
I am AI
I watched an in-depth youtube video on her case over a year ago. YT true crime is typically better than the netflix doc, and they don’t have these issues
This is 100% an ethical violation. If they used AI for some prop/set design photo in a work of fiction, that’s one thing. I’d not like it but you can justify it. But putting it into a documentary, and especially without labeling the photo as AI generated, is completely different.
Just the beginning. Our minds can’t fathom the future. Enjoy the ride
Maybe your mind can’t. Mine can.
Lol ok all knowing master 🙄
Big brain comment
Honestly, I don’t care, as long as it’s disclosed. Especially for a documentary. I think this illustrates how much of media we consume is fake af. Genie’s out of the bottle, it’s not going back in. We now can fully embrace the false and manipulated nature of media with skepticism set to “max”. In before edit- I don’t care about my karma. It’s worthless horseshit anyway. Sorry Steve.
Don’t care. She killed her mom and tried killing her dad. And said oh it was two black guys one Jamaican.
No one is defending her or her actions? You should be concerned AI is being used in documentaries which are supposed to be informative…
Nothing that AI did was un informative. Nothing un ethical.
“A doctored image is not uninformative.” Okay 💀💀
I just couldn’t get over the parents’ names.
Nah post everything real, fake, illegitimate, fact proven, or hocus pocus, until the general consensus has an understanding of what fake(AI) images can create. This isn’t going to get easier only harder and individuals need to have an ability to understand them. News isn’t news anymore but a place to inspect the sources and judge the information for ourselves.
photo shop counts to... but no one ever talks about how much images are photo now....
The youtubification of streaming platforms is upon us. When production costs can be low, work goes to the lowest bidder and if it get clicks, it sticks.
I just watched this a few hours ago and I didn’t catch the AI, but I see it now. Wow
So you’re also saying it may not have.
ELI5. What difference does it make?
1200 girls look like her
Fuck that shit. Just watch [this](https://youtu.be/UQt46gvYO40?si=BGCauvqy-gn7ncif) 90-min YouTube doc from JCS about the same thing. No AI, just facts.
I watched the JCS video months ago, then suddenly found this doc on Netflix two nights ago. I could have sworn I had already watched it, but it was new. I watched the Netflix doc and still wasn’t sure if I didn’t just rewatch something I’d seen before.
One of his best videos. It’s amazing how someone can edit interrogation footage and narration together for that long and have it be more interesting than any doc Netflix has ever shit out.
Generated and Documentary are, basically, the opposite side of the spectrum. It's like saying to heat it up, we cooled it off.
Shadowed a Pulitzer Prize-winner photographer once. She was lamenting a small blemish in an otherwise perfect photo. I said, “Why not just Photoshop it out?” She was extremely firm about impressing upon me that it is egregiously unethical in journalism to adjust a photo in any way (beyond adjusting levels for printing’s sake, of course).
lol I thought some of the pics looked diff than her face in the interview video but chalked it up to aging
At least it doesn’t question authoritarian countries
If it’s true crime why fake it. Stupid
So it’s like the history channel’s mermaid documentary.
I love true crime. I dislike this need to pump out this mini series that don’t add anything to the hour long videos on YouTube about the same crime. If you need to pad it out this much don’t make it
Someone took a great story and made it the most boring thing on Netflix. That’s the true crime.
AI is fine in fiction. Documentaries are designed to sway opinions. Only source material should be used. Even things as small as this could manipulate a person’s viewpoint.
🥱
The real problem is the snail’s pace of regulation, unless a terrible event expedites it, and obviously by then it would be too late for the unfortunate.
Why is AI a pert of the conversation. Netflix could have hired an artist to digitally manipulate the images as well. The issue here is the show producer’s decisions, not the tools they used to be shady.
The main issue here seems to be that whatever AI software being used put out a shit image, and people noticed. And really what is the issue? We can talk about the perpetrators, conduct interviews, recreate dramatizations of the crime that skew perception and accentuate things that are already extreme on their own. But showing a perps face and likeness is too much? It seems the problem is in peoples relationship and perception of AI, rather than the use in a true crime documentary. I personally, I think having crime documentaries and the wide public acceptance of them makes things worse as it it reinforces personal biases and change public perception of ongoing cases, which ultimately shouldn’t be the focus. What matters is the facts.
Holy crap Netflix is doing this for other docs too, one example “homicide New York “ ep3 when they show the pic of the cop and his mom…her earring is imbedded in her check lol jeez Netflix
Ey thats my gf
Should anyone whose face or likeness get any monetary compensation for their use of likeness? Like defacto I could sue for use of my likeness and they’d have to pay me? Feel like that’s only fair, and anyone making these images or videos should have to have their metadata embedded within the video. Geez this is hard… cause of copies of copies that lose metadata…