That is reality, that is nature. The natural world is filled with camouflaged animals and plants that prey on one another via their camouflage. This is evolution, and those unable to discriminate reality from fiction will be the causalities, as they always have since the dawn of life.
The naturalistic fallacy is weak at best, but this is one of the weirdest deployments of it I've encountered. It's not evolution, it's nothing like it.
If it's kill or be killed, we should do away with medicine right? Only the strong survive. Why are we saving the weak? Sorry but this argument is beyond silly
Deception is a key part of life, and the inability to discriminate fact from fiction is absolutely a key metric of success. Who said "kill or be killed"? Not I. It is survival or not, flourish or not, succeed or not.
But why must the deception take place? Evolution is natural, The development of AI generated videos takes teams of people, years of effort and millions of pounds. Why should those that are more easily deceived be culled? Do you believe that the future of technology is weeding out the weak? Do you believe the future of humanity is the existence of only those that can use the technologies we develop? You might very well find yourself in a position, a long time from now, where you are easily deceived by newer technologies that you are not familiar with.
Deception takes places because deception takes place, because it can. I'm not the gatekeeper of it, I'm just acknowledging it and some of the secondary effects that will occur due to these inevitable technologies. I don't believe the future is anything other than a hope. That hope will require those future individuals to be very discriminating of their surroundings to survive, all surroundings includes all the society information and socialization, because that is filled with misinformation too. All that filled with misinformation right now, and it will just get more sophisticated. That's what I'm saying.
