[HN Gopher] Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can...
___________________________________________________________________
Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can tell when a
face doesnt fit
Author : rustoo
Score : 124 points
Date : 2020-08-09 12:28 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spie.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spie.org)
| wu-tsy wrote:
| Can be used as an algorithm for a new discriminator in the GAN.
| peterthehacker wrote:
| Are deepfake face swaps a real problem yet? I can't recall any
| major controversies in recent history that were caused by a
| deepfake face swap.
|
| > This technique can be used to create compromising videos of
| virtually anyone, including celebrities, politicians, and
| corporate public figures.
|
| I've read a lot of concerned comments like this but I haven't
| read about any real world examples of a controversy caused by a
| deepfake.
| turblety wrote:
| Now we can use this new AI to train another AI that can defeat
| it. And so continues the great cat vs mouse chase.
|
| I don't think this is a problem that is ever going to be solved.
| Deep fakes will become more and more popular, and harder to
| detect.
| amelius wrote:
| Antibiotics resistance is also a cat and mouse game. It's still
| useful to keep playing the game though.
| sildur wrote:
| The difference is that all the bacteria can become resistant
| to the antibiotic soon after it is created.
| dijksterhuis wrote:
| As can deepfakes. All it takes is an additional step to
| optimise wrt the model that tries to catch it.
| sildur wrote:
| Yeah, I was dismissing the analogy with antibiotics
| because usually it takes quite some time between creating
| the antibiotic and germs being resistant. But with
| deepfakes the arms race is almost instantaneous. The
| moment something appears to tell apart deepfakes, the
| moment people can train deepfakes against that something.
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps the deepfake checking should be a third-party
| service? So you can only check so many deepfakes per day,
| limiting these attacks (i.e., you can't realistically put
| the checking inside a training loop). Just an idea ...
| IgorPartola wrote:
| I feel like it's time to bring in Heinlein's Fair Witness
| concept:
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Fair%20Witne...
|
| If you think about it, when we had relatively few journalists
| and their reputation was on the line with every story they
| wrote they in a way were fair witnesses. Since we have moved to
| a hybrid model of professional journalists and a huge caste of
| YouTubers, podcasters, bloggers, and twitters, it has become
| impossible to hold everyone to a high journalistic standard. At
| the same time Fox News has brought on an era of politicized
| news so the bias is now inherent. Maybe if we had a few hundred
| fair witnesses that offered a professional service we could
| have a way to verify facts. Then again, it's one thing to have
| a fair witness present facts, it's another to have that
| witness's likeness be deep faked and broadcast all over the web
| saying something they didn't actually say.
|
| Another solution may be regulatory: anyone broadcasting a deep
| fake with a huge disclaimer that it is a fake gets a 20% of
| their net worth fine. Draconian but I can see it working.
| ben_w wrote:
| We need something, but Fair Witnesses seem both exploitable
| and unachievable given the way human memories work.
| dvtrn wrote:
| "Expert witnesses" then?
| ben_w wrote:
| "Expert" is a misused term, much like "exponential".
|
| I see the value of the press as being as much of an
| intelligence agency as the combined CIA, NSA, and FBI,
| but serving the electorate and investigating all those
| with power -- politicians, police, military, religious,
| business, and so on -- so that the electorate can make
| informed decisions.
|
| I don't know how to get there from here. Heck, I don't
| even know if we've _ever_ really been there, or if the
| press has always been comfortably manipulated by those
| with power.
|
| But yeah, I assume genuine experts are part of the
| solution.
| nottorp wrote:
| Ref:
|
| http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579
|
| Robert Sheckley's Watchbird
| [deleted]
| trott wrote:
| Looking at the diagram, this appears to be just an LSTM slapped
| on top of a CNN. If so, I'm failing to see any novelty in this
| approach. RNNs on top of CNNs have been used before, including
| for deepfake detection. See for example:
| https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00582
|
| The recent DeepFake Detection Challenge threw a lot of manpower
| at the problem earlier this year, BTW.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Isn't this the idea of getting better results using the
| adversarial network approach? So this would be inherently ill-
| suited to _stopping_ deepfake news, yeah?
| DarthGhandi wrote:
| it's great at making them better, yes
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| If the people trying to stop deepfakes can do it so can the
| people trying to produce them anyway. The best we can do is
| some way of digitally signing videos and software displays it
| as authentic or not but then they just make fake youtube
| style sites that say its authentic. The problem will go on
| and on.... Fake news will always spread for one reason or the
| next.
| the8472 wrote:
| > but then they just make fake youtube style sites that say
| its authentic.
|
| Even simpler, someone will build an optical setup that
| sends deepfake pixels onto a signing image sensor.
| nine_k wrote:
| Now we need to stop believing our eyes _twice:_ first when we see
| a natural-looking picture but know it is a deepfake, and second
| when we see a natural-looking picture we believe is not a
| deepfake, but the computer tells us it is.
| guscost wrote:
| Cool tech, but most people will have tuned out what we know as
| "the news" (or become jaded to its purpose beyond entertainment)
| before a tool like this is necessary.
| Ijumfs wrote:
| The deepfakes which support the officially blessed narrative will
| not receive scrutiny, while authentic videos will be "proved" to
| be deep fakes by some black box machination.
|
| But we've known not to trust anything we didn't personally see
| ourselves for many decades.
| harryf wrote:
| Seems like an AI arms race just begun
| jcims wrote:
| It's just a slobbering infant trying to roll off the bed at
| this point.
|
| The battleground of what is real and fake will very quickly
| move into 'superhuman' realms of sensitivity, leaving us meaty
| minions as spectators trying to figure out which AI to trust.
| tersers wrote:
| I used the AI to destroy the AI
| nolaspring wrote:
| Someone just found the other half of their deep fake GAN
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| AI novice here. It would seem to me that the detection algorithm
| can be repurposed into making the original less detectable. A
| recursion that never ends. An advantage quickly becomes
| disadvantage.
|
| Worse. All information - even facts and truth - has been
| subverted. What happens when there is no trust? Is this not a
| road to the New Darker Ages?
| 1f60c wrote:
| That's what I'm thinking. I don't want to diminish the value of
| this research, but this cat-and-mouse game is like a GAN[0]
| with extra steps.
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
| yes_man wrote:
| The problem will increasingly be "whose algorithm do we believe".
| Internet has revealed that people believe mostly what they want
| to. We have seen that a large subset of people are believing Bill
| Gates is behind the pandemic. Why would masses somehow be more
| rational in picking the most rigorous and objective neural
| network to recognize deepfakes, than they are in making sense of
| the world in general? In the end we will have multiple competing
| entities claiming to have the best deepfake recognition, all with
| their own agenda
| biophysboy wrote:
| This is absolutely right. I've become frustrated with people
| trying to fight misinformation by just telling anonymous
| strangers "facts". Algorithms are not going to help win the
| argument. There are a lot of people who hate those who they
| perceive to be "elite technocrats". And its not completely
| unwarranted!
|
| Its a really tricky challenge. The "steady state" of
| conversations online is mutual distrust. Unless we handle this
| underlying issue, clever algorithms like this will be ignored.
| slg wrote:
| I'm reminded of the Jonathan Swift quote:
|
| >Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion,
| which by reasoning he never acquired
|
| The problem that specifically deepfakes and generally fake
| news highlights is that the general public does not have the
| aptitude, knowledge, time, or motivation to be a true arbiter
| of facts. We have traditionally outsourced that role to
| journalists. As a society we have lost faith in journalistic
| institutions so the onus is now back on the individual. We
| need a way to offload that truth-finding responsibility back
| onto a third party that can be trusted. Any system which
| requires more aptitude, knowledge, time, or motivation from
| the general public is unlikely to work because lacking those
| is exactly what got us into this mess.
| biophysboy wrote:
| The key part of your sentence being "a third party that can
| be trusted."
|
| A trustworthy third party is NOT the group that is "the
| most smart". People trust locals that they relate to. If we
| are going to offload responsibility, I personally think it
| needs to be in the old fashioned democratic pluralism style
| that we had half a century ago. Local leaders know the
| people in the area better, and they have the time and
| motivation to hear the interests of more people.
| Swizec wrote:
| > trying to fight misinformation by just telling anonymous
| strangers "facts"
|
| It's even worse when you realize that most mistruths are
| factual. You can very easily lie with facts.
|
| The texas sharpshooter falaft is a great example.
|
| You get 500 samples, take 10 good samples, and say "Look! An
| objective truth in 10 samples we have success!". You omit the
| other 490
|
| You never said a lie, facts only, but the interpretation you
| lead people towards is a lie.
|
| Or a more common example: Thing Y increases your risk of X by
| up to ten times!!!
|
| Risk goes from 0.0001% to 0.001%. It's completely irrelevant
| and you got a nice scary clickbait with objective facts.
| nothis wrote:
| For me, one reason not to freak out about this is Photoshop.
|
| It's been around for decades. _Perfect_ photographic fakes
| (literally called "photoshops") are possible. Yet is there a
| great crisis of fake photographs taking over the news? Not
| really. The actual "fake news" barely even bother with
| photoshop (and those for whom it works, don't care about the
| quality). It's somehow still fairly easy to get context and at
| some point, you just have to trust a news outlet, just like you
| had to trust them for text-based news.
|
| All we see is a trend of making it easier for people to
| subscribe to a bubble of "news" that fits their world view. The
| quality of the fakeness barely factors into this.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| The other reason not to freak out about this is that we're
| already far down the path the people think deep fakes are
| creating.
|
| Reddit and Twitter and the internet prove that people will
| react to an _image of text_ by the tens of thousands, going
| straight into their brain. All of us have been guilty of this
| at some point.
|
| To me it's naive to freak out about Photoshop and video
| deepfakes because it reveals that you're completely unaware
| of the degree of "shallowfaking". A screenshot of a headline
| or tweet spreads in a way that a deepfaked video can't, and
| it apparently goes right past our bullshit detector in a way
| that video can't.
| mlyle wrote:
| The issue with deepfakes is this: at least in the other
| cases you outline, it's possible to be skeptical and weigh
| evidence-- including direct photographic and video evidence
| that is unlikely to be safe (while it may have been
| possible to fake before, it's been labor intensive and
| presents more risk that it'd have been messed up). In turn,
| we can evaluate the credibility of media sources based on
| how they agree with other evidence that we have directly
| evaluated.
|
| As it becomes possible to fake more and more stuff, we're
| going to lose that. Different silos are going to have
| different, meticulously supported versions of the facts
| with an equivalent degree of direct-evidential and
| reputational support. And it's not clear to me as an
| individual one ever disentangles this.
| Natsu wrote:
| Maybe, but I've found that a lot of viral images are doctored
| in one way or another.
|
| Here are some links to recent examples of doctored photos. I
| know I've seen at least the deceptive image of cops "pointing
| a gun at children" when they were actually not on the front
| page of Reddit, so it's not like manipulated images have no
| effect:
|
| https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/884-Pr.
| ..
|
| http://hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/891-Count-o.
| ..
|
| That said, remember that not all alterations are digital:
|
| https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/590-Un.
| ..
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Aren't digital signatures the best solution we have for this
| problem?
|
| Commercial entities want to have the priviledge of being able
| to modify the content submitted by content creators, but the
| culture of trusting i.e. Twitter over client verification needs
| to change.
| korla wrote:
| If the technology is too hard to understand for the masses
| it's unlikely to provide much resistance to desinformation
| campaigns.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| The technology isn't hard to understand, but even if it
| were so what?
|
| How many people who watch a streaming video know...
| anything at all about how that content is delivered, at
| all, at any layer.
|
| The problem is, as OP noted, the existing gate keeps profit
| from being able to manipulate us, so convincing them to
| deliver signed content is extraordinarily unlikely.
| [deleted]
| gruez wrote:
| Digital signatures would only match of the contents match bit
| for bit. This means that you can't recompress/remux/resize
| the video. This will probably provide a very poor ux for
| mobile or other bandwidth limited users. Also, if the video
| was used as part of another video (eg. TV broadcast), you'd
| either have to splice the digitally signed video into your
| existing stream (not modifying the bits at all), or provide
| the digitally signed original as an appendix. In either case,
| you'll need tooling to make verification easy, which doesn't
| exist today.
| doomrobo wrote:
| There's some cryptographic work in this direction.
| PhotoProof allows a photographer to prove that the image
| they're presenting is, e.g., the cropped version of the
| true original image they took. Video is still way out
| there, but at least people are thinking about this.
|
| https://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~tromer/papers/photoproof-
| oakland16...
| lallysingh wrote:
| Signature chain for the transformations. The video host
| signs the pre-recompressed video and provides the original
| signature.
| vlovich123 wrote:
| Why can't you have digital signatures of the original and
| have an ML model that can evaluate whether or not it
| matches? You could run a cloud service to host the signed
| originals and continuously update the model.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Fingerprinting can take care of the recompression problems.
|
| Remuxing is a hard problem, as it can easily take people
| out of context, at the same time it's very important to
| summarize the videos, as people have limited time.
|
| Right now what I see though is that Facebook/Google/Twitter
| aren't even trying to do the bare minimum end-to-end
| authentication that Whatsapp/Telegram/Signal already does
| (create a private key on the end devices, and sign the
| content to verify the authenticity of the publisher).
|
| Requiring HTTPS was a great first step for tech companies
| to protect people and from ISPs. But they do nothing to
| protect people from themselves being compromised (the
| Twitter incident was a great proof for this).
| gruez wrote:
| > Fingerprinting can take care of the recompression
| problems.
|
| That only opens another problem: adversarial attacks that
| look totally different, but has a similar fingerprint
|
| >Right now what I see though is that
| Facebook/Google/Twitter aren't even trying to do the bare
| minimum end-to-end authentication that
| Whatsapp/Telegram/Signal already does (create a private
| key on the end devices, and sign the content to verify
| the authenticity of the publisher).
|
| >Requiring HTTPS was a great first step for tech
| companies to protect people and from ISPs. But they do
| nothing to protect people from themselves being
| compromised (the Twitter incident was a great proof for
| this).
|
| Mainly because to 99.9% of users, there's no difference
| between a message that's signed by the author, and a link
| to a tweet that's made by the author. Even if you're the
| 0.1% that do care about public key cryptography it
| doesn't matter because you're trusting the site to do the
| verification and key management. It's not like PGP where
| you can get the public keys and verify yourself.
|
| There's also the problem that people simply don't care.
| Have you seen how many photoshopped tweets end up on
| social media? If people are willing believe a screenshot
| without a link (which is trivially easy to add and
| verify), what makes you think they won't believe a
| screenshot without a signature?
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Signing it doesn't mean it wasn't altered at some point and
| does nothing to actually verify the content - only if a
| source is who they say they are. And the key distribution is
| another issue.
| ericlewis wrote:
| I think religion might have proved that people will believe
| whatever they want to first. The book Sapiens really opened my
| eyes to people.
| justforyou wrote:
| >> people will believe whatever they want to first.
|
| Including Harari. There's more wrong in that book than there
| is right, aside from basic facts that people should already
| know.
|
| Chriatopher Ryan (Civilized to Death & Sex at Dawn) explores
| the few compelling points made by Sapiens in depth and
| without all of the disingenuity and naive philosphy present
| in Sapiens.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Well it took me 35 years but I escaped religion despite being
| indoctrinated from a young age. And leaving was a difficult
| choice but education and evidence were the keys that freed
| me.
|
| Piercing cognitive biases is hard, maybe harder if those most
| in need feel forced.
| elliekelly wrote:
| > Piercing cognitive biases is hard, maybe harder if those
| most in need feel forced.
|
| I think about this article (post?) called "How to Change a
| Mind"[1] a lot. It's about a woman whose husband was in a
| religious cult and how he finally realized it.
|
| [1]https://forge.medium.com/how-to-change-a-
| mind-1774681b9369
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| Be kind to yourself and know that a fair swathe of the
| early years of life are necessarily of low agency.
| ericlewis wrote:
| I could have clarified more- I'm saying that even with
| these sort of deep fakes that breaking people out might be
| just as hard. Especially if objective proof becomes
| "malleable" similar to how religion can lack objective
| proof, manipulating people in a new way means we need
| methods.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Your point seemed clear enough to me. Perhaps my response
| drifted too far. I see education as a common solution to
| the "it's all relative" and "no one can know for sure"
| shortcuts some people take to hold on to what's more
| comfortable to believe.
|
| And just as religion may often teach people to turn off
| their critical thinking skills they can be taught to use
| them again. And human brains evolved to recognize
| unhealthy or unnatural facial imagery for millennium. So
| unmasking the more successful techniques may be enough to
| break us out of the "anything can be fake" malaise.
| TheSpiceIsLife wrote:
| This is on point, but we need to be clear on the direction of
| causality, which I believe you have correct, though I'll try
| to state it more clearly:
|
| The human mind and body is predisposed for social cohesion
| through shared narrative, and this exposed a weakness in our
| psychology: we are, as groups, extraordinarily gullible.
|
| As a result we have religion, conspiracy theories, politics,
| and crime.
|
| It remains to be seen whether this is an evolutionarily fit
| strategy.
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| This is a very low-resolution understanding of what a
| religion is. It has much more depth to it. (The writer of
| Sapiens actively tries to ignore this by reducing every
| single belief humans have (including religions) to random
| meme propagation.)
| fny wrote:
| Because YouTube, Facebook will flag these videos before they
| become too widespread.
| puranjay wrote:
| A video being taken down just corroborates their belief that
| there is some deep conspiracy behind X event
| pornel wrote:
| You're missing a sarcasm mark.
|
| But seriously: at best it's going to be a big "maybe, it
| depends". These services bounce between PR disasters of
| "complicit purveyors of propaganda" and "oppressive
| algorithms destroying free speech", so you can't rely on them
| to be on either side.
|
| As deepfakes get better, the algorithms will have worse
| detection rate, so it'll end with Zuck testifying to congress
| that Facebook doesn't want to decide what is real, so
| everyone can post deepfakes all day long.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Perhaps the wild zigzag is a hint that the people casting
| accusations are utterly full of shit and just want them to
| bend the knee to their unpleasable whims?
| hellofunk wrote:
| > You're missing a sarcasm mark.
|
| I don't see any sarcasm there.
| [deleted]
| travisoneill1 wrote:
| "I trust Google and FB, and I would like them to decide what
| is true or not for me instead of deciding myself"
| puranjay wrote:
| Amazes me how people are okay with giving these massive
| corporations so much power and control over our lives -
| voluntarily. Most would be rightfully horrified if Walmart
| or Citibank was to decide what you get to watch or not
| tomorrow. But somehow, if Alphabet or Apple does it, it's
| all okay.
|
| The tech world in general needs to wake up about the
| overreaching power and influence tech companies have on our
| lives.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| That dumb meme about "big tech controlling your mind"
| ironically seems to be doing a far better job of what it
| accuses others. It has made people /unlearn/ how the
| internet and private property work.
|
| Even with more egregious examples of moral wrong and
| stupidity like shutting down child molestation survivor
| support groups or just bad decisions like buying up
| Tumblr and trying to sanitize it weren't like but
| accepted as fundamentally how it works when it is their
| servers. There is no viable alternative to stop them from
| setting their rules. Even if they die there is nothing
| stopping them from taking their ball and going home.
| tomxor wrote:
| I can only imagine it's because what seems obvious to us
| is really not noticeable to 99% of people.
|
| You have to remember we are in a little bubble of our own
| for better or worse, most of HN readers principles are
| generally aligned against this kind of centralisation and
| we highlight and amplify anything we see that matches;
| I'm guessing your average FB user is more focused on the
| value proposition of these services they are consuming
| and wont give the corporations behind them much of a
| thought until it hits big news.
| puranjay wrote:
| Much of it depends on the way people interact with
| businesses. Big Banks are bad because people can
| literally see overdraft fees and all sorts of surcharges
| being tacked onto their accounts, often in shady ways.
| Big Oil is bad because they literally pollute the
| environment and routinely spill millions of gallons of
| oil in the ocean.
|
| In contrast, for the average person, Google is just the
| free little search engine that shows you all the answers
| and also gives you the free phone software. Whatever
| egregious privacy violations they do are wrapped up in a
| layer of abstraction that, if you don't get technology,
| can be hard to grasp.
|
| The next generation is smarter though. They understand
| technology fundamentally and know that there's no such
| thing as "free".
| JimiofEden wrote:
| This seems like test driven development, but applied on a much
| larger scale.
| bsaul wrote:
| Maybe advanced DRMs will be a way forward ? Have camera
| fingerprint / sign the video, and then every editing videos
| fingerprint & sign the changes performed, and send everything to
| a ledger ? Only way to make sure a video is actually coming from
| the real world...
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| We don't need this for photographs. Why do we need it for
| video?
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Deepfakes are generated by a generative adversarial network.
|
| There are two networks: a generator, and a discriminator.
|
| The generator generates a result, the discriminator evaluates
| that result.
|
| This AI that detect fakes faces could be used to train the
| discriminator so that the GAN generates even better results.
| adfhnionio wrote:
| I find all this concern a little bit overblown. Yes, it is a
| problem that we can make extremely convincing fakes, but we've
| had fakes that can fool non-experts for a very long time. The
| Soviet Union doctored a great many photographs in a way invisible
| to me (examples:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_images_in_the_So...).
| Why are we more concerned about this fakery than about
| airbrushing?
|
| The solution is the same as it's always been: stick to
| trustworthy sources and insist that all evidence is traced and
| corroborated. It remains easy to learn the truth as long as you
| make a good faith effort to do so. In the worst case we can just
| stop trusting photographs altogether. We got by just fine before
| the camera was invented; we can do fine after it becomes
| obsolete.
| mooneater wrote:
| Because good fake video is now possible for the first time,
| good video was nearly impossible to fake. Because people
| believe certain leaders who are willing to use false evidence.
| Because the populace is not prepared to be that discerning.
| codecamper wrote:
| This is getting stupid. People.. aging, cancer, Alzheimer's still
| exist. Maybe time to reprioritize & organize efforts?
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Those are completely different deep specalties and best funded
| in parallel anyway given diminishing returns. Complaining about
| something that irrelevant to capabilities is like saying brain
| surgeons suck at inventing green energy.
| mbrumlow wrote:
| This will just be like anti virus. Peole will start to train
| their algos to fool the current algo that is is being used. We
| will be a never ending fight.
| 3wolf wrote:
| That's GAN training in a nutshell.
| ThomPete wrote:
| this is the virus killer war all over again
| arielbaz wrote:
| see also "Training a deep learning model for deepfake detection"
| ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22433711 )
| hairofadog wrote:
| Can god create a fake so deep that they themselves can't detect
| it?
| neutrallinked wrote:
| DNA will set them apart
| neutrallinked wrote:
| We should also look towards simpler alternatives. ( For example
| some days back I also read about a profile made on a social media
| platform with a "generated" face )
|
| 1) For image platforms to prevent "generated" profile with fake
| faces, may be request 2 profile pictures and not one. A task that
| is difficult to achieve at high resolution.
|
| 2) For deep fake videos .. May be the idea be to fight the
| "video" part and not the "deep fake" part. By that I mean
| "signed" content. ABC news should "sign" generated videos and so
| should other publishing houses. So that any other source claiming
| forged voice or certain kind of "faked" content are not able to
| do so.
| dependenttypes wrote:
| There is a simpler alternative imo: consider any news that do not
| list all of their sources as fake news. Treat them as if they
| were scientific papers.
| [deleted]
| olivermarks wrote:
| The challenge with algos like this is that they could be used to
| claim events that actually did happen didn't. So as an example
| credible/convincing footage of Jeffrey Epstein by a pool in
| Paraguay last week could be 'identified as a deep fake' and
| discredited, despite other supporting facts and information that
| lent credence to veracity.
| alkonaut wrote:
| This seems like it's "adversarial" to deep fakes. I wonder what
| that can be used for.
| varbhat wrote:
| What if it gives false positive results? What if it tags non-
| deepfake news as deepfake-news ?
| Erlich_Bachman wrote:
| Hey, we all know that this will not be the end of deep fakes. It
| will just another channel of information to think about. Now we
| have to care about whether this algorithm is correct, or maybe it
| is also manipulated by the other political party to claim that
| the others' picture is fake...
|
| But it had to be created at some point, it had to exist. This is
| just an inevitable next step of the progress.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-09 23:00 UTC)