The two possibilities are as follows: either the algorithm is responsible for all the changes to the original, or the content of the altered speech was crafted by a human. This scene is a tribute to the art of rhetoric (Ars rhetorica). The scene depicts the genesis (out of nothing) of a cult, fanaticism, and a surge of imagined unity (ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer), set against a grotesque backdrop of invented signs and rituals.
The film The Great Dictator (1940) directed by Chaplin mocks the fetishistic attitude towards “acts of communication,” towards “communication protocols”, without which the order of modernity as we know it would disappear in the blink of an eye.
The speech scene of the film Dictator (Adenoid Hynkel, by profession: “a simple Jewish-Tomainian barber” living in the fictional Tomainia) is a case in point. Until 10 May, the year was characterized by relative calm (the Phoney War) following a period of slightly unsettling events somewhere far in the east of Europe.
For those who have not yet had an opportunity to view it, it is recommended that they do so during the summer of 2024.
The scene to which the link (https://www.facebook.com/share/FpFLjdUPJZzPLSzW/) leads was edited, woven, and displayed by today’s machines and AI algorithms, which we are beginning to fear. As can be seen, we are indeed living at the end of the era of eyewitness facts.
Upon initial observation, the scene appears identical the original from 1940. However, the closer examination reveals that the content of the speech has been significantly altered. The rest of the scene is irrelevant; they are merely puppets, listeners adorned with ridiculous badges, and pretenders. Such a puppet court is a common phenomenon surrounding any strong dictator, even in a democratic setting. We have witnessed this phenomenon before and therefore place a high value on the importance of even abstract law.
Take a moment to observe both the original and the machine-altered version, which diverges in the opposite direction. The potential of technology to alter any streams of images and sounds is considerable.
It should be prudent to exercise caution and to consider the implications of laws, that aim to mitigate the capabilities of machines, especially those that are rhetorically flawless and already capable of altering what we “remember so well.” It is important to recognize that laws are also established under the influence of rhetorical arguments.
Two possibilities exist: either the algorithm is responsible for all the changes to the original, or the content of the altered speech was crafted by a human. Is is necessary to determine which is more likely.
If one concludes that the second possibility is not unfavorable, that we have a chance, that we will manage, and that we will adapt to the pace of changes in our living environment imposed by technology, then it is possible that we might even remain “masters of the situation” in the 21st century. However, this is somewhat akin to a black-and-white film about dictatorship. A trace of human presence might be the phrase about “not my concern,” which is a very characteristic phrase for our species. For the time being, it is unclear whether machines and algorithms are capable of identifying their own interest. Isn’t it?
