AI-generated 'poverty porn' fake images being used by aid agencies

You should be distrustful of every emotion generated by a mass media campaign. They're all artificial, and generated for the benefit of the person running the campaign, not you.

It's still possible to function, it's just that you have to go out and seek information, and usually seek information through channels where the organization is not delivering it to you. Every non-profit files a Form 990 with the IRS, and every public company files a form 10-Q/K with the SEC. There's a wealth of information there for figuring out what the company is doing, but they usually like to obfuscate it in some extremely boring text and financial figures, because they want you to buy into the narrative they deliver to the press and not the facts they deliver to the government. They usually will not outright lie on these, though, because doing so is a crime that can put the CEO, CFO, and Board of Directors in jail.

Same for consumer stuff. Ruthlessly seek out back-channel information about products, whether it's word-of-mouth from friends, online reviews (though these are increasingly easily gamed these days), product tests from independent organizations (though again, many companies provide free products to review in exchange for favorable reviews), etc. I've found that keeping an online subscription to Consumer Reports has been well worth it because they're one of the few review sites where you pay them to review, the company doesn't pay them to get reviewed. Advertisements are worthless; treat them as such. Same goes for random cold calls; it's probably a scam, unless you can corroborate it otherwise.

> How can you possibly make due diligence when everyone around you is incentivized to lie?

You can't and the correct response is a total lack of trust by default because that's the easiest way to protect yourself.

They really are out to get you(r money).

If you can be beguiled by random images from an unknown solicitor to make rash financial decisions, the root of the problem is probably sitting in front of the screen. "A fool and his money are soon parted" is not a new thing, it's just easier to accomplish than ever before thanks to the dopamine conditioned internet and AI content generation. These victims don't need new legal layers of trust, they need a social media detox.

TBF, I just assume everyone is lying (either first hand or second) and its on them to prove to me they're not.

Hasn't failed me yet.

> We do have a concept of fraud

We only do have such a concept when it's about an individual lying to a company for profit.

When companies lie to individuals it's just business as usual, or worst-case scenario a "mistake" that the company pinky-promises will not happen again.

Empathy is a hackable interface- those that are exposing it, are in this attention economy civil war zone- lesser beings by default.

They once where protected by the state- but the state, as policeman- has been continuously reduced in its protector role, by those, who found hackable political interfaces, the ticks on the state wave through the fleas on the people. The pent-up backlash to all this results in a militant vote for anti-parasitic and exposure limiting institutions.

Fascism promises to remove those attackers, by fire-walling away the exterior and prosecuting perceived attackers on the inside of the nation.

Every successful scam, every allowed exploit, is a advertising for the totalitarians who promise to restore order.

That picture of the skeletal kid that went around shows they can spread some pretty wrogn ideas with real photos too. Context is everything.

Any news organization that does this deserves to burn, but I think it makes sense for aid organizations because they want to be able to portray the work they're doing / have done but might have some pause showing real people's faces while they're suffering. In a way a dramatization seems more "humane" and preserves the dignity of the individuals involved.

I've run photos I've taken through AI so I could post pictures of myself without opening myself to being doxxed.

If you don't get real photos though, how do you know you aren't misrepresenting the people you are aiding? You could very well be exaggerating their plight which will make your donors feel scammed if the truth comes out.

Think about it from the perspective of a possible benefactor. If they're being lured in with these images at all, there's clearly an emotional element to it. If they start realizing the images weren't real at all, there's a very good chance they will stop donating because you have lied to them. The crux of their support was based on falsehoods.

Personally, I'd prefer donating to an organization that isn't trying to use "sad" images to gut-punch me in the first place. There's a reason the "Arms Of An Angel" ASCPA ads are a laughingstock.

> It’s really showing the real picture of all the aid agencies. They aim for your money. That’s the single purpose.

The might be some like that, but not all. You can't paint with such an all-or-nothing brush. Be specific about the organizations you think are a "scam" and are only after your money.

> Because they can’t provide photo documentation of they work on the site where apparently the aid happened. So sad. And many people fall for this scam.

You're putting too much faith in "photo documentation." A lot of stuff can't, or can't practically documented with photos. I'd say the benefits of aid are one of those things? A picture of people distributing food from a truck? Could be a staged photo-op. And there's the issue of "poverty porn," where you take photos of someone's miserable situation so some better off people can gawk and judge.

Isn't it just probabilistic? That's who's most likely in poor and/or in refugee camps.

> I suspect that we’ll be seeing AI-generated images of everything (including product shots), soon.

This is already a thing. There are high-quality tools specifically for it. I saw a video from a photographer who works in that industry and his opinion is that their jobs are over and they need to prepare to do something else.

> I’m old enough to remember the Sally Struthers ads…

I’m old enough to remember when South Park took the piss out of Sally Struthers.

I have no idea who Sally Struthers is and I’ve never seen any of the adverts.