7 mo. ago • 96%

Netflix Doc ‘What Jennifer Did’ Uses AI Images to Create False Historical Record

www.404media.co Netflix Doc ‘What Jennifer Did’ Uses AI Images to Create False Historical Record

Documentary filmmakers were publishing guidelines on how to ethically use generative AI right as Netflix’s true crime doc was adding fake images to the historical record.

57 comments

"A primary concern for Petrucelli, Jenkins, and Antell, longtime documentary filmmakers and co-founders of the Archival Producers Alliance (APA), is to avoid a situation in which AI-generated images make their way into documentaries without proper disclosure, creating a false historical record."

They shouldn't be in a documentary period. A documentary is meant to be factual and historical so nothing fake should be injected into it.

160
- Documentaries often include recreations of events, such as historical events that weren't filmed. It's usually noted as being a recreation or re-enactment. If AI-created images are used instead and are noted as being such, I don't really see the problem, assuming the images are curated to depict the scene accurately.
  
  130
  
  The problem in both cases is that people remember these artistic depiction as real, even if there's a disclosure.
  
  48
  
  This is how I'm leaning too. If done appropriately this should be no different than "this is a reenactment of events" seen in 90s and 00s true crime shows.
  
  The big challenge is getting the content creators to respect that template and not bury the disclosure in the credits.
  
  21
  
  Yeah they shouldn’t do that either
  
  -1
  
  A recreation is a scripted recreation, and I believe legally required to be noted as such. Whether that's in the credits or on screen at time of playing I think is at the discretion of the filmmaker and editors.
  
  Wildly different concept than generative AI models doing whatever they feel. At the end of the day, I can see why some people can't see the difference, but it's huge. I'd also say that if the former were improperly used in a horrific way, you'd just say "Well the viewers can stay away from that documentary", but as we we've all seen over the past decade or so, once the falsely represented account of events is out there, you can't stop it from spreading. Whether is a still image, or a reenactment. One has current legal repercussions and is covered by libel and slander protections, and the other doesn't. World of difference.
  
  -3
- Just to play devil's advocate, does that mean any "artist rendering" shouldn't be in a documentary? Documentaries have had drawings, with a disclaimer that it is an artist rendering, for as long as I can remember. Or what about when they hire actors to do a "dramatization" of what happened, how is this different?
  
  21
  
  They are different because they are clearly not real images or video. The fact that we can generate images of whatever we want that are near if not impossible to discern as fake by the naked eye, means that they shouldn't be in there at all.
  
  8
- As a wrestling fan I know to never fuck with the APA!
  
  5
- A documentary is meant to be factual and historical so nothing fake should be injected into it.
  
  If you trust a documentary like this then I don't trust your reasoning. "Vaxxed" is a documentary that, incorrectly, talks about the dangers of vaccination.
  
  -2
Reading through these comments it seems that many lemmings have wildly optimistic ideals about ethics in the "true crime" genre of documentaries.

Even for sincere documentarians, presenting unvarnished history accurately and completely is an impossibility. For the bad-faith actors, you'd be amazed at how much is outright staged or otherwise faked. The only rule is that it be entertaining.

As far as "true crime", the question of "should we even make this" is pretty ethically fraught. True crime is cheap, popular, and stuffed to the brim with hacks and bad faith actors.

70
- Well thanks to you I've found my niche...documentaries about true crime documentaries
  
  13
  
  Is this a real niche? Cuz I would watch some if you have recs
  
  5
A proof of concept documentary about how fabricated evidence could be used to promote a fringe theory or even convict would be way cool.

How Jennifer shot JFK

Dunno if this is that.

46
- Knew it all along; Jennifer was the second shooter!
  
  3
  
  Duuuuuuude... JFK. Jennifer Fucking Killed! It was in front of us the whole time! 😱
  
  6
Yes there are re-enactments in documentaries but this was using actual photos of the subject. I def have a problem with that. It's exploitive at the very least and reminds of the AI shitshow to come. Disclosure should be on the damn picture itself, not in the credits.

Re-enactments have actors and no one confuses them for the actual subjects. If you dont have enough material, don't make a 'true crime documentary'.

43
- okay, so, yes, its not 'true', and the crime its about didn't actually 'happen', but everyone knows' true crime' is a genre defined by its aesthetics and 'grittiness' and being very cheap to produce, so we here at Netflix believe we're being true to the highest ideals and aesthetics of the genre.
  
  7
- They might not be mistaken for the actual people in the case, but they certainly get beleived as 100% accurate reenactments.
  
  2
loginwall -- here's the full text https://pastebin.com/krVEdG5v

26
We call that historical fiction.

23
- We call that bullshit where I come from. Either it’s historical or it’s fiction. Fiction can be done in an historical setting, but is never historical itself.
  
  8
- Not if it poses as a documentary.
  
  7
  
  In the U.K. there’s a law (perhaps it’s an agreement between the broadcasters, no sure) to display a P in the corner of the screen when there’s product placements. So every time someone takes a phone out in a soap opera, the little P appears. Hilarious how ALL the characters in Hollyoaks chose Windows Mobile for a while.
  
  Perhaps we ought to require the same for AI generated media.
  
  7
- So like Inglorious Bastards?
  
  4
Are the images clearly labeled, or are they trying to pass them off as reality? There's a clear difference.

18
- It’s Netflix marketing with ai. If this happened in the past it would just be photoshopped. They’re using buzzwords to get you engaged
  
  0
  
  You didn't read the article. These are images that appeared in the documentary and were not marked as generated. It was implied they were real photos.
  
  10
Is it just me, or is everyone here commenting on a half article, the other half being behind a paywall? 😬

8
- Yeah I couldn’t read the whole article, so what I’d want to know is if the AI generated images were shown with a disclosure or not. Because that changes everything..
  
  Edit: apparently there was no disclosure in the movie, which is the problem
  
  6
  
  If there was a disclosure, that would be fine. Documentaries used actors, reenactments, illustrations, 3D generated content, etc. before. If it helps viewers visualize the topic, it is fine. If it skews the story to push a theory of the documentary, that's not fine.
  
  3
- In my experience, most just read the headline. That's why the tldr bot is so important and most subs banning it are just doing the community a disservice.
  
  4
Paywall :/

7
Fuck all these disgusting true crime documentaries regardless whether or not they use AI

6
So do I though

-1

You've viewed 57 comments.