Prophecies of Epistemic Doom – Artificial Intelligence

The situation is this, in about 20 years many artificial intelligence researchers claim that reality will change.
There are claims that 10% of researchers think that the results will be devastating. (And some reduce it to 1%). The feeling is that at that time computers will exploit the artificial in the best case and not the other way around. (Like the paperclip, someone will program the computer to produce as many paperclips as possible and in return they will destroy everything that moves to make it happen and if necessary exploit the artificial).

Anyway, there is another claim that I focused on,
that at that time it will be possible to create a deepfake that cannot be distinguished from the truth, just as today it is already possible to make people's voices sound in an indistinguishable way. In combination with transhumanism that connects directly to consciousness.

So, for a person living in that era and knowing that the computer can fool us in an indistinguishable way,
Can a person who sees everything trust their eyes? Because they have an excellent positive fear why not.

Strange question. If the assumption is that it would be possible to create a deepfake that would be indistinguishable from real information, then it would be indistinguishable from real information. What is the question? The question is whether this will indeed be the case (meaning that there will be no ways to distinguish). If it will be, then it will be. I don't see what the question is. Do you want me to predict what methods will be used to circumvent this? Prophecy is not one of my many virtues.

A prophet who prophesied in the name of God that next year a general deceiving demon would arise, and a year passed and no demon was seen. Was the prophecy refuted and the prophet punished as a false prophet, or could he claim to be true? I prophesied and the demon is deceiving you.

In other words: Can a prophecy that cannot be refuted be verified, and is a prophecy that cannot be verified a prophecy?

If the other language deals with a general and general prophecy, then it seems simpler because it is possible with subjective knowledge. A prophecy that cannot be refuted can be verified, such as a prophecy that at least one of the audience will suddenly feel a sting in the spleen at a certain rate – if the sting spells, the prophecy will be confirmed (and if everyone testifies that they did not feel it, it seems reasonable to me that there is no acceptance of a slanderous testimony that everyone as a whole spoke the truth). And a prophecy that cannot be verified can be refuted, such as a prophecy that the entire audience will not feel a sting, if the sting spells, the prophecy will be refuted. Indeed.

And regarding the general demon, in simple terms, this prophet is no different from anyone else who would say, "It seems to you that I have desecrated the Sabbath, but a demon is deceiving you," but there is some kind of stinging sensation on the subject, against which a prophet has the desired assumption here. If you think this is indeed a little different from anyone else who would claim that a demon is deceiving you, perhaps you could clarify. (I wrote here because it seems that the questioner asked about a general deceptive demon and when in your answer you referred to prophecy, it seemed that you were precise in the type of prophecy, assuming that deception is limited).

Interesting,
Do you think that the scenario of many futurists and researchers regarding deepfake will actually come true?