[HN Gopher] South Park creators have new political satire series...
___________________________________________________________________
South Park creators have new political satire series with AI-
generated deepfakes
Author : LaSombra
Score : 660 points
Date : 2020-11-02 14:03 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| interestica wrote:
| With this capability already in hand, it currently just feels
| like politicians are holding onto a potential video as some sort
| of 0-day exploit - waiting for the best moment to drop a video to
| really sway opinions.
| iworkfromhome wrote:
| MIT Technology Review
|
| The creators of South Park have a new weekly deepfake satire
| show.
|
| The character Fred Sassy, whose face is a deepfake of president
| Trump's, on the new show Sassy Justice.
|
| http://technologyreview.com.via.snip.ly/uxrgw8
| steerablesafe wrote:
| How will this work with IP laws around likeness? Is this fair
| use?
| shannifin wrote:
| Collider did some deepfake vids with celebrity impressionists
| which I thought were funny:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_6Tumd8EQI
| 01100011 wrote:
| This is the funniest thing Matt and Trey have done in years. I
| don't know if they still write the show, but it hasn't been funny
| to me in a couple years. This clip had me rolling. This feels
| inspired and I hope it creates more awareness in the general
| public.
| bobbyi_settv wrote:
| Until very recently, I thought they wrote all the episodes
| without outside involvement, but then I recently came across
| this clip where Bill Hader talks about being part of a "South
| Park retreat" where they bring people to brainstorm episodes
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdZnGz9CWpU
| lolcatv wrote:
| This funniest thing is this is 100% Trump and probably the best
| thing he's put out yet.
| thrav wrote:
| I couldn't agree more. It managed to feel like good old
| fashioned low budget internet fun from YouTube yesteryear.
| Putting aside Matt and Trey, it's one of the few things that's
| made me genuinely burst out laughing in years, period.
|
| It's made me stop and think about why that is, and the best I
| can come up with is that very little is surprising anymore.
| When you get past 30, everything feels like something you've
| seen done before. Deep fake comedy is so cutting edge, that it
| couldn't help but be fresh.
|
| Or maybe I'm just a boring old man. The last thing that made me
| laugh this hard was this Reddit submission, and again, it
| succeeds because I didn't see it coming:
| https://i.reddit.com/r/ContagiousLaughter/comments/gzdja1/on...
| ryan-allen wrote:
| Trey Parker is credited as the writer for the vast majority of
| episodes of South Park, especially since Season 4. Most of
| their episodes are topical these days, I recommend checking out
| the recent Pandemic Special.
|
| Matt, Trey and a guy named Robert Lopez wrote the theatre
| production Book of Mormon, which was well received and won Tony
| awards (Trey studied Musical Theatre in College, which explains
| why the South Park Movie was a musical).
|
| Trey's daughter was cast as Jared Kushner in Sassy Justice,
| which was hilarious, and the lead in Sassy Justice is played by
| Peter Serafinowicz [0], who is a British comedian!
|
| I hope they make more of these, not just because I'm a fan, but
| because it massively disseminates the power of deepfakes!
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-7NDP8V-6A
| 01100011 wrote:
| I saw the pandemic special and, I don't know, it just didn't
| seem funny to me. I still watch Mr. Hankey's Christmas
| Classics every year when I decorate the tree, and I still
| love what they did up until around season 12. After that it
| gets hit-or-miss and after a few more seasons just didn't
| seem worth watching anymore. I'd chalk it up to getting older
| and not smoking pot anymore, but I still love their old
| stuff.
| ryan-allen wrote:
| The older episodes are my favourite as well. Ding dong
| m'kay!
| Schiphol wrote:
| That Robert Lopez also wrote the awesome Avenue Q musical,
| and co-wrote the Frozen songs with his wife. He is also the
| youngest person to achieve an EGOT (https://en.wikipedia.org/
| wiki/List_of_people_who_have_won_Ac...).
| crankyoldcrank wrote:
| Would've been funnier if it was Biden having the stroke. Much
| more believable. But a week before the election I guess only
| Trump is an acceptable target. Notice Biden didn't get
| mentioned a single time.. even when making fun of Trump's son-
| in-law, surely there's a better joke there about the picture of
| Hunter Biden with a crack pipe in his mouth that's more
| relevant to the topic. Or I guess, Matt and Trey know that's
| real ;)
|
| I give it a 4/10 for effort. The first half was pretty funny.
| After that, it's just Orange Man Bad. Comedy is always so
| boring when there's a Republican in the White House.. usually
| Matt and Trey are an exception but you can't win them all.
| 1024core wrote:
| Just post under your own account; why create a new one for
| this comment?
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| spurgu wrote:
| Others have probably mentioned this, but my first thought is
| how this will bring deep fakes to people's attention, and make
| them realize that _nothing_ they see on the internet is
| necessarily real.
| hhs wrote:
| Trey Parker had a similar reaction [0]:
|
| "But when Parker got to see himself digitally altered to look
| like Al Gore, he said, "It was the first time I had laughed at
| myself in a long time."
|
| Parker added: "I always hate watching myself. Even with 'South
| Park,' I have a perfect image of what it's going to look like
| in my head all the time. But on this, there were moments where
| we felt like kids in our basement again."
|
| To Parker and Stone, the experience also reminded them of "The
| Spirit of Christmas," their 1995 homemade short film that
| became a viral sensation in a more primitive age of the
| internet and paved the way for "South Park.""
|
| [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/arts/television/sassy-
| jus...
| davesque wrote:
| I actually think this will be the best way to immunize people
| against the effects of deepfakes. We need to make a sort of
| ubiquitous meme out of it.
| psyc wrote:
| Welp, Christmas came early. I couldn't have hoped for a better
| satiric voice to exploit this particular tech.
| fredley wrote:
| I _think_ that the Michael Cain section is Peter Serafinowicz
| doing a Michael Cain impression (which has then been deepfaked),
| but it could be Lyre Bird or similar! The fact that I really
| can't make my mind up which it could be and the weird sense of
| doubt, to me, means that this has hit the mark perfectly.
|
| I've been thinking about this video a lot since I first saw it.
| It's genuinely very unsettling.
| pimlottc wrote:
| NYT did an article about it [0], which has some details on the
| casting. Peter Serafinowicz is indeed doing his Michael Caine
| impersonation, and also does Trump. Other characters are done
| by Trey Parker and various family members.
|
| 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/arts/television/sassy-
| jus...
| pram wrote:
| He also did Michael Cain in his show, it's extremely spot on.
|
| https://youtu.be/HdBZ3Pg0-OM
| agency wrote:
| Why does it best? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFIQIpC5_wY
| asciimo wrote:
| This is the first thing I thought about when I saw the
| Sassy Michael Cain. This is the only thing I remember from
| The Trip.
| cableshaft wrote:
| Wouldn't be surprised. While searching him on Youtube I even
| stumbled on Peter Serafinowicz's appearance on Stephen Colbert
| where they're talking about him even doing 'bad lip reading'
| videos for trump in different personalities, one of them being
| 'Sassy Trump', so he might have had something to do with this
| show coming about in general.
|
| I don't think he's doing the voice for Sassy Justice, though.
| That sounds more like Trey Parker to me. But they probably
| brought him in to do Michael Caine.
|
| https://youtu.be/Oe28UOFNlxk?t=138
| GilbertErik wrote:
| I think you need to listen. There's little differences
| between Peter Serafinowicz as Fred Sassy and Trey Parker as
| Al Gore. There's tiny little mistakes in the voice. I think
| you need to watch it again, but this time watch with your
| ears. </s>
| mattnewton wrote:
| I thought the punchline was going to be a wavenet-style audio
| deepfake for that segment haha, I had no idea it was a person
| doing it haha. It explains why they repeatedly said it was
| impossible for a _human_ to do a perfect impersonation.
| jonhohle wrote:
| That's where my mind went as well. There are some audio
| artifacts right around the time he says that that almost hint
| at the audio being generated. I really enjoyed the ambiguity.
| modeless wrote:
| Funny, I kind of got the opposite message. The Tom Cruise bits
| were poking fun at the fact that all of these deepfakes are
| every bit as obvious as the puppet. And they didn't even try
| deepfaking the voices because it doesn't work at all. Just
| listen to the latest state of the art voice mimicking samples.
| They're terrible! It says a lot that the only actually
| convincing fake in the entire video was a human impersonator's
| voice.
|
| That said, this stuff will improve over time. But before you
| label it the end of the world you really have to think about
| how much has always been possible with impersonators and
| makeup/prosthetics.
| nucleardog wrote:
| The podcast Twenty Thousand Hertz did an episode on deepfake
| voices[1], which is my only real exposure to the audio side
| of this that I know about. Certainly wouldn't say it didn't
| work or was terrible.
|
| [1]: https://www.20k.org/episodes/deepfakedallas
| unfunco wrote:
| Peter Serafinowicz is a co-creator of the show and I think
| Sassy Trump was originally his idea, I remember seeing him do
| it on The Late Show.
| brahweh wrote:
| At about 3:18 into the video you can see what appears to be
| Serafinowicz playing Sassy as the camera moves behind him.
| Makes sense that faking would be hard from strange oblique
| angles, so looks like they just skipped it.
|
| https://youtu.be/9WfZuNceFDM?t=198
| wodenokoto wrote:
| At first I thought the sub-headings were summaries of sketches
| from the show (which I thought was an odd thing to do) so imagine
| my surprise that the article ends with announcing a new release
| of PyTorch.
|
| The article consists of 5 different small articles.
|
| Does anybody know where the new show by Trey Parker and Matt
| Stone called Sassy Justice is airing? Is it a free Youtube
| series?
| ds206 wrote:
| https://www.sassyjustice.com/
| techer wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM&feature=emb_titl...
| pimlottc wrote:
| The homepage is sassyjustice.com. Currently it's embedded from
| YouTube.
| sto_hristo wrote:
| Impressive. A show that puts those figures in their real-world
| roles and surroundings, but satirizing everything they do will
| raise hell indeed. Something like House of Cards, but with satire
| and known figures.
| jascii wrote:
| Wow, that deep fake of Tom Cruise is just uncanny...
| grawprog wrote:
| I understand the worries behind deep fakes, but i'm going to be a
| bit facetious here, hasn't getting the most realistic, lifelike
| images always been the goal of computer graphics? Wouldn't
| deepfakes be the ultimate culmination of lifelike CGI. So
| lifelike it's indistinguishable from the real thing?
|
| Like for most of my life, this is the goal I keep hearing about.
| Now it's here, suddenly it's too real.
|
| I dunno just seems a bit funny to me. I've never been one of
| those graphics people myself, but it seems like a case of getting
| what you asked for, but being upset because it's different to how
| you expected it was going to be.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| Deep fake is photoshop for video and audio. Alarmists are going
| to opine the many ways it will cause the sky to fall but life
| will continue.
| edanm wrote:
| Life will continue is a pretty low bar...
| three_seagrass wrote:
| After the sky falls or how it has after the invention of
| photoshop? I'm referring to the latter.
| dchichkov wrote:
| Who knows, maybe out of that more attention will be paid to a
| message, rather than the person. Cults of personality had
| always been problematic. And, technically, this allows to grab
| the personality and dissolve the cult.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| The problem is that, in a representative democracy, voters
| are deciding on the person, rather than the message. If you
| have systems that increase the noise floor in the link
| between the two, you end up with an electorate that's less
| well-equipped to make coherent decisions.
| standardUser wrote:
| I don't think anyone is disputing the idea that technology in
| this arena can/will/should advance, but rather that this
| specific set of technologies come with consequences that are,
| to many of us, absolutely terrifying.
|
| I also don't think we truly understood how susceptible so many
| people are to made up nonsense until recent years, so this
| particular kind of made up nonsense suddenly looks like a
| serious threat to social stability and cohesion.
| rglover wrote:
| Just a few more months of these weight loss pills and I'm
| going to look like David Hasselhoff.
| grawprog wrote:
| >I also don't think we truly understood how susceptible so
| many people are to made up nonsense until recent years
|
| That's not true, that's been the basis behind marketing and
| advertising since it existed. It's been fairly well known for
| a long time people easily believe nonsense.
| rexpop wrote:
| The question isn't "what's wrong with the technology," but
| rather "what harm can it do in the context of our societal
| development?"
| stanrivers wrote:
| This feels like the start of something very bad - they are going
| to be upfront about the deepfakes... others are not.
|
| It's going to get to the point where you can't even say in a
| court room "well we have video of him doing this". The fact that
| deepfakes will exist will erode confidence in even those things
| that are true. At the same time it will add additional fake
| situations to the conversation.
|
| Worst part is that eventually even the AI-powered counter
| measures are going to fail eventually. The moment a computer
| knows what gives away a hint that it is a deepfakes and not real,
| a computer can solve to not present that give away. The "good
| guys" and "bad guys" will iterate with each other until it is
| perfected.
| usrusr wrote:
| > This feels like the start of something very bad - they are
| going to be upfront about the deepfakes... others are not.
|
| Well, something really bad is definitely ahead with fake videos
| (as if real videos, with significantly meaning-changing
| omissions made with the plain old cutting process weren't bad
| enough) and people with high visibility creating awareness by
| doing it in the open is the closest thing to a defense that we
| have. It's a hopelessly weak defense but better than nothing.
| hugi wrote:
| It's not bad, it's inevitable and it's nice we have some light
| shed on it. Stupid people will no doubt try to "ban deepfakes",
| but we are going to have to learn to live with them.
| m_ke wrote:
| I recommend watching Adam Curtis' documentary called
| Hypernormalisation to get a sense of how badly this can get
| abused by political operatives. Especially this clip:
| https://youtu.be/Y5ubluwNkqg
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fny99f8amM
| mistermann wrote:
| There are a lot of valid and important ideas in Adam Curtis
| (and many, many others) documentaries people could benefit
| from exposing themselves to (Century of Self is another one
| that I believe is a must watch for citizens of a democracy).
|
| A weird thing about this thread, and others like it, is that
| there seems to be this broadly shared implicit premise within
| the thread context that the feared ill effects of new
| technologies like this have not already been prevalent in our
| societies and information ecosystems for decades. In a thread
| about bias, fake news, propaganda, etc, people seem to have
| no problem realizing and acknowledging that we already have a
| very serious problem (often only visible in one's personal
| outgroup, but that's better than nothing) - but when the
| _specific_ topic of conversation is a new technology, the
| majority of the comments seem to be written as if we don 't
| really have any significant issues currently. It seems as if
| there's some sort of a phenomenon whereby the logical
| methodology for evaluation of the situation changes according
| to the topic, as opposed to there being a consistent
| methodology that at all times has an explicit awareness of
| the ever-present bigger picture.
|
| Here's [1] an 8 minute video on Presidential debates. This
| fairly well demonstrates how this aspect of our political
| system is largely pure theatre...and yet, intelligent people
| often speak (again, _depending on the specific(!) topic of
| discussion_ ) as if this charade is highly legitimate
| process, within a larger political (and journalistic) process
| that is also highly legitimate.
|
| The way I view the ecosystem is that the vast majority of
| things are to a very large extent ~fake (in whole or in
| part). Cranking up the absurdity to 11 in classic South Park
| style, making a complete mockery of both the politicians _as
| well as those who can 't consistently(!) conceptualize the
| true nature of our system_, seems like an excellent response
| to a situation that has been sorely in need of some good old
| fashioned satirical mocking for decades. Western society &
| politics lost the right to be taken seriously ages ago -
| admitting to ourselves that there's a problem seems to me
| like a prerequisite first step in fixing it.
|
| [1] Winning the Presidency: Debating
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayz7zLn6uFU
| m_ke wrote:
| I'm much more concerned about the inverse, not people
| getting fooled by fake content, but believing that anything
| that doesn't align with their views is fake. We can end up
| in a post truth society where someone like Trump, Duterte,
| Bolsonaro or Orban can claim that any footage that is not
| politically advantageous to them is fake and created by an
| evil opposition to hurt their cause.
|
| ex: Trump access hollywood tape -> fake
| Soros conspiracy to save the pedophiles
|
| We'll have a lot more people believing conspiracies like
| the moon landing being fake and end up with a lot of 9/11,
| JFK, holocaust, etc deniers.
| mistermann wrote:
| > I'm much more concerned about the inverse, not people
| getting fooled by fake content, but believing that
| anything that doesn't align with their views is fake. We
| can end up in a post truth society where someone like
| Trump, Duterte, Bolsonaro or Orban can claim that any
| footage that is not politically advantageous to them is
| fake and created by an evil opposition to hurt their
| cause.
|
| I believe the optimum approach is to be concerned with
| all risks, and weigh the magnitude of each in a state of
| careful self-monitoring of one's potential biases (and
| ideally, have your conclusions reviewed by others,
| preferably from a diversity of ideologies and
| perspectives in an attempt to minimize the well known
| affects of groupthink). Noteworthy to me is that a
| significant number of people (if not the majority,
| depending on which community you are in) are easily able
| to see the epistemic errors in their outgroups thinking,
| but has more difficulty in doing the same within their
| ingroup.
|
| For example, in your comment it seems that you have
| noticed shortcomings when it comes to politicians of one
| general ideology, but I wonder if you are of the belief
| that this phenomenon _does not_ occur across all
| ideologies?
| snarfy wrote:
| It's never perfected, just look to the animal kingdom for
| examples. Mimicry and camouflage is a never ending evolution.
| javier123454321 wrote:
| Yes, deepfakes are going to kill plausible deniability in audio
| and video.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > deepfakes are going to kill plausible deniability in audio
| and video
|
| Huh? Don't deepfakes do the exact opposite - make plausible
| deniability in audio and video a much stronger argument?
|
| Before if you denied a video of you was genuine that would
| not be plausible. Now it would be plausible.
| underdeserver wrote:
| Well, others would be doing it anyway. Deepfakes are something
| you can do at home, today (if you're willing to spend some time
| and money on power to train them).
|
| By being so open about it Stone and Parker will just increase
| awareness of how easy it is to do, so people will know how
| realistic these things can look and not blindly believe what
| they see.
|
| So, again, what these guys are doing is a true public service.
| sbmassey wrote:
| Maybe people will learn to no longer believe partisan
| information sources, and organisations whose reputation is
| based solely on the veracity of their content will predominate.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| But you can say "we have emails where he admits to doing this"
| in a court room, even though emails can be trivially faked. You
| just have to provide information about how you got the emails
| and how you know they're authentic. Is there a reason to expect
| video will be more problematic as it becomes easier to fake?
| harrisonjackson wrote:
| Chain of custody is a good argument for protections within a
| court room but court of public opinion is where the deep
| fakes will really run wild.
| njharman wrote:
| > "well we have video of him doing this". The fact that
| deepfakes will exist will erode confidence in even those things
| that are true
|
| That's good. Courts should not have high confidence in any
| single bit of evidence. It can all be manufactured. And long
| before now. It's just (too) hard to manufacture, not be
| detected, and get larger number of people required to "go
| along" with it, when you have manufacture multiple
| collaborating pieces.
| conception wrote:
| Maybe... photoshop detection hasn't gone down that path as far
| as I know. I would imagine the problems of hiding detection in
| video to be a magnitude harder to hide?
| bogwog wrote:
| True, but photoshop is usually done by hand. An AI-generated
| deepfake could maybe eventually be trained so that it outputs
| videos that are indistinguishable from the real thing.
| thebean11 wrote:
| The detection side also gets the benefits of AI though. I
| can't see the generation side getting that far ahead.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > I can't see the generation side getting that far ahead.
|
| How far ahead do they need to be?
|
| Suppose that it's cat and mouse, at least initially.
| Every six months someone comes up with a new way to
| detect the best known deepfakes, then six months after
| that there is a new way to evade that means of detection
| as well.
|
| Someone drops a deepfake five weeks before an election.
| Gh0stRAT wrote:
| From what I understand though, generators always have an
| advantage because the generator is allowed to "see" the
| discriminator's gradients during training. [0]
|
| >The model for the discriminator is usually more complex
| than the generator (more filters and more layers) and a
| good discriminator gives quality information. In many GAN
| applications, we may run into bottlenecks where
| increasing generator capacity shows no quality
| improvement. Until we identify the bottlenecks and
| resolve them, increasing generator capacity does not seem
| to be a priority for many partitioners. [1]
|
| Put another way: GAN training ends when the discriminator
| can no longer meaningfully distinguish real from fake. By
| definition then, the best generator will have no useful
| discriminator that can distinguish its output from real
| data. (conversely, if you did have such a discriminator,
| you could use it to train a better generator)
|
| [0] https://developers.google.com/machine-
| learning/gan/generator
|
| [1] https://towardsdatascience.com/gan-ways-to-improve-
| gan-perfo...
| cm2187 wrote:
| How is that different from photoshop? Today no one trusts a
| photo, as even a teenager can do a decent fake on a smartphone.
| Now the same for audio and video. Doesn't change our world.
| wcarron wrote:
| What? There are obvious examples where faked video can have a
| serious affect. What kind of solipsistic nightmare are we
| slipping into?
| cm2187 wrote:
| Because people still have some faith in videos. Deepfakes
| will remediate that very quickly.
| alcover wrote:
| I fear they won't. Some crowds only need a spark to
| explode. They won't wait for counter-evidence. They just
| need a pretext.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| The synthetic media apocalypse is even worse then these
| examples. The ability for liberal democracy to exist at all is
| highly in doubt. We need serious leadership to be attacking
| this problem head-on. Instead, I'm pretty sure that our current
| administration (in the US but also elsewhere) only see it as a
| welcome propaganda tool.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Wouldn't surprise me if society gets completely blindsided.
| As corona has shown, the people who know lack power, and the
| people with power don't give a shit.
| DenisM wrote:
| It's been exactly like that with newspapers and eyewitness
| accounts for hundreds of years. We survived.
| murzy wrote:
| > The moment a computer knows what gives away a hint that it is
| a deepfakes and not real, a computer can solve to not present
| that give away. The "good guys" and "bad guys" will iterate
| with each other until it is perfected.
|
| You just described a GAN (generative adversarial network)!
| captainmuon wrote:
| Actually, I'm a bit more optimistic about this.
|
| One thing that worries me is that everything is becoming
| immutable, saved forever, and digitally signed. Hard to claim
| you didn't post something if your account is super secure. You
| can't go anywhere without cameras taking your picture. And if
| someone steals your bitcoin or your smart contract has a
| mistake, your money is gone. You can't argue with an algorithm.
| And the internet never forgets. (Well, unless it is
| inconvenient for you, then Murphy's law applies ;-))
|
| There are many such phenomena but I'd say they are all related:
| They mean you have less wiggle room for mistakes, or social
| deviance. If you are in a situation where you have to break a
| law, or if you are just having an affair, chances are someone
| or something is going to see you. There is no anonymity in the
| crowd anymore, on the contrary.
|
| But this deep fake technology, if it really evolves to be
| undetectable, can be liberating, if it erodes the trust in
| pictures. At least the social control mechanisms based on
| cameras are going to stop working.
|
| We were living in a very specific phase of human history, where
| we learned how to produce pictures from real scenes, but
| haven't learned yet to easily fake them. I just think this is
| going to come to an end, and we'll have to adapt. (I hope we'll
| adapt socially, and not just by cramming DRM into our
| technology like we tend do to; but that is a different topic.)
| jackfoxy wrote:
| Everything is not immutable or even becoming immutable.
| Content is merely endpoints. Unless extraordinary care is
| taken, like publishing hashes, the response from the
| endpoints can change over time. Lots of content has changed,
| for instance on Wikipedia. In theory you could wade through
| the wiki history. I don't know if that is protected by
| hashing or not. Lots of content gets shoved down the memory
| hole.
| notsuoh wrote:
| Indeed. We went from a world where nothing was recorded
| outside of very fallible memory, to one where everything is
| recorded, to perhaps one where even though everything is
| recorded, there's enough deniability via deep fakes that it
| doesn't matter as much that things were recorded.
| autumn_unlaces wrote:
| We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
| everything the American public believes is false.
| acover wrote:
| Would signing the image in hardware alleviate some of the
| problem? It would create a high cost to faking.
| b0rsuk wrote:
| Maybe we should just go back to analog video?
| staticautomatic wrote:
| I've said it here before and I'll say it again:
|
| Audio and video evidence isn't admissible because it's audio or
| video (and may be inadmissible nonetheless). It's admissible
| because someone testifies under oath that they have personal
| knowledge of its provenance. The burden is on the party
| introducing the evidence to show that it's reliable, and the
| question of whether or not it is indeed reliable is a factual
| one for a judge or jury to answer. It's not assumed to be
| "true" or to accurately reflect reality just because it's a
| purported photo, video, or audio recording.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I appreciate you saying this, I hadn't known that. I think
| therefore it may be OK in the court of law but what about in
| the court of public opinion? I could see videos like this
| easily eroding our trust in the judicial system even further.
| diegoperini wrote:
| It's probably not gonna take a single generation to get
| used to this but as it always happened with new technology
| throughout centuries, people who are born into this new
| normal will know how not to be fooled.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| Will they be able to? Widespread cynicism and distrust
| feels more likely.
| mrfox321 wrote:
| But the jury are humans. Should we be confident that a jury
| of 12 (if in US) can pretend that _really_ convincing
| deepfakes should not be trusted? Especially when this form of
| evidence has been trustworthy for a decent chunk of time?
| staticautomatic wrote:
| If no one can testify about the video's provenance, then it
| simply won't be admitted into evidence. If someone commits
| perjury in order to get the video admitted, the jurors will
| be the least of the problems.
| iso1210 wrote:
| People commit perjury all the time
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| This works in a courtroom. This won't work for a politician
| who retweets a faked video that then incites real violence.
| And _that_ , at least for now, is where we truly need to be
| concerned.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > This works in a courtroom.
|
| Does it though?
|
| Suppose there is a theft at a company. The police go to the
| company's security team and get the surveillance footage.
| Presumably admissible.
|
| If it was an inside job, the surveillance footage could be
| a deepfake showing someone else committing the crime. Or
| maybe it's real surveillance footage. Without some way to
| distinguish the two, how do you know?
| ethbr0 wrote:
| The interaction of our current legal system with SotA
| deepfakes seems terrifying.
|
| To rip from current headlines:
| https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdpa/pr/erie-man-charged-
| arson-...
|
| (Leaving aside the merits of the case / opinions, and
| just using it as an example)
|
| _".. the [Facebook Live & coffee shop] videos depict a
| male - with distinctive hair to the middle of his back
| wearing a white mask, white shirt, light blue jean
| jacket, black pants with a red and white striped pattern
| down the side and red shoes - setting a fire inside of
| Ember + Forge."
|
| "A review of additional Facebook public video footage
| from the area of State Street near City Hall in Erie on
| the evening of May 30, 2020, shows the same individual
| without the mask but wearing identical clothing and
| shoes. The subject's face is fully visible in this video
| footage."_
|
| And that's a federal arson charge (min 5 years, max 20
| years prison).
| Camas wrote:
| And a witness might lie. How will we manage?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Frequently by incarcerating innocent people.
| zests wrote:
| We already have plenty of politicians who misquote or lie
| to sow division and therefore violence. What's new here?
| scarmig wrote:
| The argument would be that we have social antibodies to
| typical politician lies, but we've not developed the same
| antibodies to deepfakes. Since political deepfakes are
| inevitable IMO, the question is how can we accelerate the
| development of these needed social antibodies.
| keiferski wrote:
| The onus of responsibility is still on the person doing the
| violence. Contrary to the fearmongering, I'd say deepfakes
| will just make people not believe things they read on the
| Internet (again), especially as the technology becomes more
| widespread.
| scarmig wrote:
| Where the ultimate onus of responsibility falls doesn't
| matter much when you've got a bunch of Rohingya hanging
| from trees because some politician retweeted a fake
| video.
| keiferski wrote:
| If you follow it through, that line of argument makes no
| sense. If the video weren't fake, would that somehow make
| the murder of Rohingya acceptable? Of course not.
|
| Ultimately you end up back at the beginning: holding
| people, and not pieces of information, accountable for
| their actions. That's an issue with civil society, not
| social media.
| scarmig wrote:
| Deepfakes have the potential to exacerbate existing
| issues in civil society. If your husband has just been
| murdered because of a riot instigated by a deepfake, it's
| not a great comfort to know that it's not really the
| "fault" of the deepfake but instead the "fault" of a
| broken civil society.
|
| Plus, deepfakes have the potential to create much more
| noxious videos than real life. Real life videos depict
| real life people, flaws and complexities all included;
| deepfakes will be constructed to depict representations
| of the target that're most likely to generate inchoate
| rage of the mob. It's rare that the former happens to be
| exactly the latter.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Well the world does not operate based upon what is
| comforting. I thought that it was obvious even before
| COVID-19 but people keep on missing this.
|
| Why not blame the person who confirmed your husband's
| death at this point if accepting comfortable illusions of
| someone easy to punish is what we are doing? Without them
| you would still have some remote hope of survival!
|
| The first step of solving a problem is recognizing the
| actual problem - what we find comforting is only a
| distraction for rationalization purposes. Better to
| recognize that microscopic organisms caused the crop
| failure instead of burning an old woman as a witch.
| scarmig wrote:
| Burning a woman as a witch doesn't build any kind of
| incentive structure to prevent future crop failures.
| Punishing politicians who incite violence creates the
| obvious incentive structure for politicians not to incite
| violence, which results in less violence. This applies
| both the deepfakes and calls to violence in general.
|
| Politicians don't have a particular right to remain in
| office despite inciting violence, even if it gives them
| the sads if they face repercussions.
| alcover wrote:
| If the video weren't fake, would that somehow make the
| murder of Rohingya acceptable?
|
| Your answer is astray. What is at stake is evident : one
| can now provoke riots and deaths from thin air (and
| bits).
| mypalmike wrote:
| Genocides happen because of propaganda. The planners and
| financers and propagandists don't tend to kill with their
| own hands. But they command massive acts of violence.
|
| Just one example: A radio station (RTLM) in Rwanda laid
| the groundwork of genocide by dehumanizing Tutsis, among
| other things by referring to them as "cockroaches"
| repeatedly. The station was deemed instrumental in the
| resulting murders of at least half a million people.
|
| It's not fear mongering to look at the facts of history
| and see that propaganda is a primary way that violence
| scales. Deep fakes are another tool which will certainly
| be used towards these same ends. What propagandist would
| _not_ want to use such a tool?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's not fear mongering to look at the facts of history
| and see that propaganda is a primary way that violence
| scales.
|
| Propaganda is a primary way that _human action and
| organization_ , whether violent or not, for good or ill,
| scales.
| b0rsuk wrote:
| So people will believe what they _choose to believe_. A
| populist 's wet dream. Truly nothing to be afraid of!
| munk-a wrote:
| It doesn't work right now due to the partisan divide in
| America. Spreading misinformation to help your party's
| cause isn't currently looked down on - so, honestly, having
| deepfakes out there might not hurt much and might at least
| help reduce the weight that blatantly doctored videos carry
| with the general populace.
| [deleted]
| optymizer wrote:
| I think it'll be similar to the situation with pictures. We've
| had the ability to 'photoshop' people's faces in and out of
| images for a long time now.
|
| I think the first question asked of a video is going to be "is
| this a deep fake?" just like we currently ask "is this picture
| photoshopped?".
|
| It doesn't mean that we no longer use pictures, or that we
| don't alter pictures, just that we are more critical of them.
|
| That said, there is just more realism in a series of moving
| pictures, but I don't see why the situation for a series of
| fake pictures has to be wildly different from the situation of
| a single fake picture.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| The issue is cost. Proving that an image is or isn't
| photoshopped isn't all that difficult/expensive. Anyone well
| versed in digital imagery can use basic tools to expose
| 99.99% of photoshopped images. But moving pictures are
| different. Due to compression artifacts and the overall lower
| quality of each frame there is much more room for opinion. An
| answer one way or another may be possible but it will be a
| much greater and more expensive battle of experts.
| Tenoke wrote:
| If anything it's the opposite and it's much harder to fake
| videos without leaving traces.
| evan_ wrote:
| In just the last couple hours someone has tweeted a picture
| of Biden from June 2019 not wearing a facemask, and claiming
| it's from more recently and he's being irresponsible by not
| wearing a facemask. It has tens of thousands of retweets, no
| deep fake necessary.
| rexpop wrote:
| > you can't even say in a court room "well we have video of him
| doing this".
|
| Good. We should dispense with retributive justice, and replace
| it with restorative, transformative systems which are a noop on
| the wrongly accused.
| woah wrote:
| Who cares? Photographic evidence has barely existed for 100
| years, and it's been frequently doctored the whole time.
| DennisP wrote:
| So there are two problems: people not trusting true videos, and
| people trusting fake videos. I think the second problem is
| probably worse, and this satire will at least help with that.
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| > It's going to get to the point where you can't even say in a
| court room "well we have video of him doing this". The fact
| that deepfakes will exist will erode confidence in even those
| things that are true. At the same time it will add additional
| fake situations to the conversation.
|
| You cannot underestimate the global political ramifications of
| this. If you think the amount of video manipulation was bad
| enough this cycle in the 2020 presidential election? Imagine a
| few years from now when video's are being put out by political
| operatives and people with nefarious agenda's with impunity all
| over social media.
|
| This sort of thing absolutely terrifies me since you can start
| to twist reality to whatever you want and influence people in
| ways we never thought possible. I really feel like the genie is
| out of the bottle and this has the potential to become a very
| dangerous tool for people with bad intentions.
| m_ke wrote:
| It's worse than that, politicians will be able to credibly
| claim that anything that's not advantageous to them is fake.
| We'll end up in a world where a tin pot dictator like Trump
| can go out and say that anything he said or did in the past
| was not real.
| cm2187 wrote:
| The other way round. Any shocking video trending on twitter
| will start with a -100 credibility as people will think "just
| another deepfake".
|
| You are assuming people will have never heard of these
| deepfakes. Sure there are still a few grannies today who have
| never heard of photoshop. But your average twitter user?
| mwigdahl wrote:
| I think that's overoptimistic. A shocking video trending on
| Twitter that reinforces some population's existing beliefs
| and biases about the subject will find a ready audience of
| believers.
|
| Every piece of controversial video content will have a
| group loudly screaming "TRUTH!" at the same time as another
| group screaming "FAKE!", and it will just amplify the
| social polarization we're already experiencing.
| dirtyid wrote:
| Can't wait the a pipeline between writing scripts to procedurally
| generated deep fake videos.
| hospadar wrote:
| This is SO GREAT!
|
| I often feel deep existential dread about deepfakes and the lag
| between when they are viable (now) and when everyone stops
| trusting video that doesn't have some kind of rock-solid
| signed/encrypted/testified provenance (years from now or never?).
|
| What better way to educate the public about deepfake technology
| than with over-the top satire?
| cm2187 wrote:
| Agree, video has always been a deeply manipulative media.
| Between editing, angles of shooting, music. The simple fact
| that you have a voice over that tells you something and that
| somehow because you are watching the video (what you watch is
| real) the voice over is also the truth.
|
| It will introduce a healthy dose of skepticism to that media.
| Bluestein wrote:
| We might as well ask Kuleshov about this, father of the
| Kuleshov effect with his experiments between 1910 and 1920
| ...
|
| In the - now famous - film below, Kuleshov edited a shot of
| the expressionless face of an actor, which was alternated
| with various other shots (a bowl of soup, a girl in a coffin,
| a woman on a divan).
|
| - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gGl3LJ7vHc
|
| When the clip was shown to an audience, they believed that
| the expression on the protagonist's face was different each
| time he appeared, depending on whether he was "looking at"
| the bowl of soup, a girl in the coffin, or the woman on the
| divan, showing an expression of hunger, grief, or desire,
| respectively.
|
| Of course, the footage of actor Ivan Mosjoukine was actually
| the same shot each time.-
|
| The audience even went on to rave about the actors
| "performance" ... "the heavy pensiveness of his mood over the
| forgotten soup, [they] were touched and moved by the deep
| sorrow with which he looked on the dead child, and noted the
| lust with which he observed the woman".-
|
| The point is that, given the audiovisual medium, a certain
| degree of manipulation, or "intent" on the part of those
| creating the work is always to be expected ...
|
| ... and, also, that audiences bring their own bagage when
| they view something.-
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "I often feel deep existential dread about deepfakes and the
| lag between when they are viable (now)"
|
| But they still should be spottable as Fake, if examined.
|
| Related, a MIT project to build a KI to spot deepfakes (also
| ways to spot deepfake as human):
|
| https://www.media.mit.edu/projects/detect-fakes/overview/
| gsich wrote:
| Digital signatures do exist.
| rossjudson wrote:
| I couldn't agree with you more. It probably _is_ the best way
| to popularize what deep fakes can really do.
|
| I also agree on video provenance/signing. Perhaps signed video
| will be something devices do by default in the future. If there
| are multiple devices recording, we can probably find a way to
| cross-check. Actually, that probably also exists. ;)
| seg_lol wrote:
| Multicamera deep fakes are already a thing. I just saw some
| patches for injecting the same hardware codec fingerprints
| into the synthesized video so that one appears to come from a
| samsung and the other an iphone 11.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| >years from now or never?
|
| I really don't think this is true. I hear stories about
| deepfakes on NPR pretty regularly. It would be very strange if
| a subject that has managed to gain some mainstream media
| traction was never internalized by a large percentage of the
| general public.
| cacois wrote:
| NPR listeners != large percentage of the general public.
|
| Also, people believe what they see, on an instinctual level.
| Hell, people believe what they hear, mostly. It will take a
| lot of education and time to untrain that.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I try to avoid consuming too much news, so I don't have
| much exposure to other news sources (and I only probably
| get an hour or two of NPR programming per week). Given the
| level of coverage I've heard on NPR, I would be pretty
| shocked if the subject hasn't received _some_ coverage by
| most major media outlets.
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| I agree 100%. Deepfake hysteria is absurd.
|
| I'm the author of https://vo.codes, and my goal has been to
| make deep fakes as accessible as possible so people become
| familiar with them.
|
| You know what people use vo.codes for? Memes. That's it.
|
| A number of journalists have decided the technology is entirely
| confusing and deceitful. While there are new risks posed by
| deep fakes, I believe the potential for good far outweighs the
| bad. Today I see it being used mostly for artistic purposes and
| for humor. The real threat is social media and the soapbox
| amplification and attention algorithm, not deep fakes.
|
| Deep fakes enable creatives to make this kind of stuff (most of
| these are made with vocodes) :
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSgd4PoQofQ
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBpqJF5LXX4
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qR8I5zlMHs
|
| https://twitter.com/RodanSpeedwagon/status/13172304947156213...
|
| https://twitter.com/twpl_logan/status/1306542488694460416
|
| https://youtu.be/mS0v2zbjtTg
|
| vtubers are using it to give themselves new voices, which is
| amazing:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCKcrSrPYcw
|
| As the technology improves, it will become disruptive and
| enable average people to join the ranks of Hollywood actors,
| directors, music producers, and vocalists. The future isn't
| A-list celebrities and grammy winners, it's people like you and
| me.
|
| The people stoking the anti-deepfake fire are the media. They
| claim that this is the end of trust and authenticity, despite
| the fact that classical methods of trickery and deceit are
| already way more common. Where are their doomsday articles
| about catfishing, phishing, and social engineering? There
| aren't any, because it isn't exciting.
|
| This technology doesn't really move the needle for deception if
| you can slow a video of Nancy Pelosi to half speed and claim
| that she's drunk.
|
| Deepfakes are just the next wave of photoshop. People don't use
| photoshop to steal elections and win court cases. They use it
| to make memes. It's the same deal with deepfakes.
|
| The technology is going to improve. And I'm sure the hysteria
| will increase in volume too.
|
| Real time voice conversion and video generation is going to be
| cited as "scary", but it'll mostly be a hit with gamers and
| vtubers. It's not going to be a "Mission Impossible"-style
| espionage tool. It's going to be used in good humor and to good
| effect.
|
| These tools are going to bring about a new media renaissance.
| They'll let the small players compete with the giants. That's
| not scary - it's exciting.
|
| That's also what I'm working on for my startup: memes today,
| hollywood / old media disruption tomorrow.
|
| I've already got insane growth (millions of requests a week,
| and our videos have hundreds of thousands of YouTube views).
| I'm wondering when to pull the trigger and start hiring people.
| (My users are already working with me to build more!)
|
| I'm super excited by this field, and you should be too. The
| media is screaming fire, but I'm running at it with full speed.
| I see the magic and the amazing opportunity.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "You know what people use vo.codes for? Memes. That's it."
|
| Not really. Browsing the dark corners on 4chan and reddit,
| you'll often find people posting pictures of real people and
| asking if someone can put them into a deepfake.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| _As the technology improves, it will become disruptive and
| enable average people to join the ranks of Hollywood actors,
| directors, music producers, and vocalists. The future isn 't
| A-list celebrities and grammy winners, it's people like you
| and me._
|
| Just my two cents, but acting is not as simple as wearing
| someone's face. If deepfakes make me look like an A-list
| actor, that alone will not get me a lead role in a big budget
| movie. I would still require acting skills.
| echelon wrote:
| Do you know how many skilled, under-appreciated actors
| there are in the world? The economics of production create
| limited head room at the top. You'd be shocked how many
| talented actors, directors, and writers there are that go
| undiscovered and under-utilized.
| seg_lol wrote:
| Screenwriters will be able to make entire movies using
| literally only their voice. I tell a story to a computer,
| it will "imagine" the entire thing.
|
| And after that, the computer will make the stories and we
| will watch, at which point the Drake Equation takes over.
| MaximumYComb wrote:
| "Hey Google, make me a 90 minute movie about X where Y
| also happens but put in some plot twists"
| echelon wrote:
| More or less bingo. It might be a few decades, but this
| is where we're headed. And I'd rank this as more certain
| and profitable than self-driving cars.
|
| I don't think Disney will keep pace. This trend will
| cannibalize their IP and this level of tech competence
| isn't in their DNA.
| atharris wrote:
| As a corollary - how many people already spread inaccurate or
| misleading video clips, sound bites, etc without this
| technology, and how many already refuse to believe real ones
| produced by the 'lying news media?' I think the hysteria is
| completely misplaced, and the extremely polarized media
| landscape is itself to blame.
| Igelau wrote:
| > A number of journalists have decided the technology is
| entirely confusing and deceitful.
|
| It's not the journalists I'm worried about. It's the
| advertisers.
|
| > Deepfakes are just the next wave of photoshop. People don't
| use photoshop to steal elections and win court cases. They
| use it to make memes. It's the same deal with deepfakes.
|
| You say that now. By 2024 we'll be getting served political
| ads depicting "Person who looks like my cousin" in a riot,
| "Child that looks so much like mine" being shoved into the
| backdoor of a pizza parlor, or "Sad sack that looks like me"
| standing in an unemployment line. Fairly certain we all
| signed away the permission to use our likenesses in the
| various TOS.
|
| It's also going to be a whole new vein for bullying, e.g.
| "Goofus hates Gallant. Most kids hate Gallant. Goofus posts
| low-grade deepfakes of Gallant dying and committing acts of
| self-harm. The bodies and the hair don't match at all since
| the source GIFs are from movies and tv, but it's definitely
| Gallant's face. Goofus gets a short term dopamine burst from
| his fake internet points as his peers pluslike and cross-
| post. One day Gallant decides, 'maybe they're right'"
|
| I know it sounds like panicky, theatric, Black Mirror script
| stuff, but there are no missing pieces to keep either of
| these from being a button click away. It just might not be
| quite cheap enough _yet_.
| kube-system wrote:
| > People don't use photoshop to steal elections and win court
| cases.
|
| People definitely attempt to do both of these things.
|
| While we definitely can't (and certainly shouldn't) stop this
| tech from existing, there is still an important civic and
| academic need to address deep-fakes in conversations about
| media literacy. People should understand how to analyze the
| reputability of media regardless of the type. It doesn't
| matter if they're watching a video or reading a book.
| eggsmediumrare wrote:
| The problem I'm most afraid of isn't people actually using
| deepfakes for nefarious purposes (although I think you are
| not nearly concerned enough about that... It would be very
| easy for Russia or China to alter local elections by making a
| grainy video of a candidate appearing to smoke crack a la Rob
| Ford, for example). I'm afraid of people internalizing the
| idea that you can't trust video at all. I agree with your
| criticism of the media on this, but from a slightly different
| angle... They are spreading that exact idea. True or not,
| it's a dangerous idea.
| rexpop wrote:
| > It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
| his salary depends on his not understanding it.
|
| -- Upton Sinclair
| echelon wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is directed at me or the media.
|
| If it's at me, I could just as well be building anything
| else. I find this technology fascinating, and I see an
| almost magical future ahead where we can tweak sensory
| input and play it like an instrument.
|
| It's the closest we've come to building our dreams. The
| possibility of the _The Matrix_ made more real, and bent to
| our own desires.
|
| This stuff is going to sink Hollywood and replace it with
| an improvement at least an order of magnitude more
| imaginative.
|
| So it's not that I'm letting personal interest or profit
| motives cloud my judgment. I think this is truly
| revolutionary, and I don't understand why others don't see
| the same glittering and fantastical future.
|
| They're too afraid of the demons to build the cool thing.
| talentedcoin wrote:
| Sorry, but if the "new media renaissance" is SpongeBob
| singing WAP, count me out. I don't think it's exciting, I
| think it's lame.
|
| But you're right, there's always money to be made in making
| the Internet an even dumber place than it is already. Have
| fun!
| echelon wrote:
| That's such a narrow-minded, salt vinegar take.
|
| How many leaps away are we from 10 year olds making their
| own Star Wars movies? Not many, I posit. And I think that
| many of them can and will do better than George Lucas.
|
| This technology is going to give so many more people the
| ability to create. As we begin to automate the tedious jobs
| and industries, it's important we have something fulfilling
| and engaging for people to move to. The creative field is
| rewarding and leads to self-growth and entrepreneurism.
|
| The future is going to be a Cambrian explosion of
| creativity and expression. Look at YouTube, TikTok, and
| Patreon. Imagine what more tooling will do for these folks.
| Brains are teeming with ideas and imagination, but they
| often don't have the resources to breathe life into things
| imagined - with this next round of tech, we're going to
| change that.
|
| Conversely, the concentration of wealth and production
| value at the top (entities like SpongeBob and Cardi B) will
| erode once everyone has the ability to generate character
| designs, animation, music, lyrics. More money will pump
| into the system, and it'll spread more evenly.
|
| This is the Internet / Smart Phone revolution all over
| again.
| talentedcoin wrote:
| We don't have the same idea of the meaning behind the
| words "create" or "creativity".
|
| TikTok is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about --
| you just want to create another vector for even more
| soulless, time-wasting popularity contests.
|
| What you're describing to me sounds like a technological
| way for adult children to play brand-promoting dress-up
| inside the already-worn-out shell of pop culture, a way
| to infinitely recombine the old without actually creating
| anything new or interesting.
|
| Call it a narrow-minded take if you like. I'm sure you'll
| be laughing all the way to the bank, so who cares what I
| think? It'll be a hit on 4chan.
| phailhaus wrote:
| > What better way to educate the public about deepfake
| technology than with over-the top satire?
|
| There is a sizable group of people who do not know that The
| Colbert Report was satire. The problem with satire is that
| there will always be a group of people who think it's real,
| it's like a corollary to Poe's Law.
|
| Source: Research: Conservatives believe Colbert isn't joking
| https://www.cnet.com/news/research-conservatives-believe-col...
| malandrew wrote:
| Yup. The same goes the other direction. The Babylon Bee has
| been fact checked a bunch of times because some liberals
| think it is fake news not satire. Whether it's a few, some,
| many, whatever is debatable, but seems like a general rule
| that people generally don't perceive satire to be satire when
| it doesn't match their preferred consumer choice of
| gaslighting mainstream media. It's hardly specific to
| liberals or conservatives.
| tines wrote:
| Not a compelling problem imo. You could say the same thing
| about irony, sarcasm, etc. but nobody calls it a problem.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > I often feel deep existential dread about deepfakes and the
| lag between when they are viable (now) and when everyone stops
| trusting video that doesn't have some kind of rock-solid
| signed/encrypted/testified provenance (years from now or
| never?).
|
| Maybe we'll have to go back to sworn witness statements. Worked
| for thousands of years.
| davidw wrote:
| Think how many instances of someone's word vs the police
| there have been. It did not 'work' very well. Mobile phone
| video has changed some things for the better.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Sadly we are well aware of how inaccurate and untrustworthy
| eye-witness accounts can be.
| asperous wrote:
| Eye witnesses are very accurate when it comes to broad
| ideas like did you hear a loud noise on this day.
|
| Where they fail, especially compared to evidence and video,
| is details like what did the noise sound like, what did the
| person look like, what were they wearing, etc
| chrisseaton wrote:
| But at least there is a human being behind each statement.
| You can question, you can examine their motives, you can
| challenge. A video is just a video. An anonymous accuser.
| You can't ask a video any questions.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Slightly OT, but I finally realized this was probably the
| long-game behind Facebook et al.'s real-identity-only
| policy.
|
| Sure it has the side (main!) benefit of empowering
| targeted advertising.
|
| But fundamentally creating traceability between
| content/comment and a singular identity enables
| elimination of the most egregious abuses (mass-
| disinformation/ganging).
|
| I'm as 90s internet-is-for-anonymous as anyone, but I
| have to admit traceability has merit in the larger social
| ecosystems.
| intotheabyss wrote:
| We can create decentralized identity systems, where you
| decide which information should be public, while also
| providing accountability.
|
| https://www.microsoft.com/en/security/business/identity/o
| wn-...
|
| Rather than let mega corps control identities, which
| should be building open source tools to allow developers
| to include decentralized identities within their
| platforms, preferably systems that interoperate with
| Ethereum.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Much of the worst content is published by people under
| their own names and news bylines. And then happily
| retweeted by people under their own names.
|
| It gets worse when businesses and adverts are included in
| the mix. Who is Bob's News Agency, _really_? Can you
| click on every advert to find who paid for it? No.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Absolutely, but the difference is those people have
| fingerprints.
|
| If someone is repeatedly toxic (which should be
| algorithmically identifiable), you can take steps to
| balance that.
|
| You cannot do the same if 50% of your userbase lacks a
| stable / historical identity. At least without attempting
| to recreate identity on the basis of metadata (IP,
| patterns, etc).
| chillwaves wrote:
| A video is data that exists with forensic context.
|
| What we need are institutions that are trusted to verify
| this data, like journalism. Except it is being allowed to
| be perverted for profit or ideology.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| What does a journalist know about verifying video data?
|
| And isn't a journalist going to bring their own side of
| the story to it? Hardly independent.
| Apes wrote:
| As inaccurate and untrustworthy as deepfakes are making
| video?
| kube-system wrote:
| If not worse.
|
| 1. Physical evidence can at least by analyzed by a third
| party, and
|
| 2. Misleading deepfakes aren't created accidentally by
| honest people.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| I would say it didn't work for thousands of years. It just
| was the best we had.
| sega_sai wrote:
| Is there some kind of private/public key signing technique for
| videos, when the camera creating a video signs it with some key
| providing a signature that can be verified for authenticity ? so
| you would be able to at least verify that the video was created
| at certain date on a certain camera ?
| blonde_ocean wrote:
| The toughest issue here, IMO, is being able to sign and
| authenticate a document without proprietary DRM. Been thinking
| about this a lot.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| DRM is indeed what it is; you need to verify a signature
| somewhere to ensure it hasn't been tampered or altered, which
| requires an internet connection to verify or download.
| iso1210 wrote:
| There's the Trusted News Initiative [0] and Project Origin
| [1,2]. Too little, and not enough support imo.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2020/trusted-
| ne...
|
| [1]
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/46f5eb33-b7b...
|
| [2] https://www.originproject.info/
| djsumdog wrote:
| I think this solves the wrong problem. Most of these deepfakes
| have obvious places where you can tell they are renders. I
| think it's more important to have tooling that can tell when a
| video has been altered.
|
| I'm more concerned with the manipulation of grainy low-res
| video. Police body cameras are an incredibly tool for police
| departments to fight misinformation (well, only when people
| watch the whole thing). Is editing these types of videos as
| obvious has high resolution video, or is it more easy
| manipulable?
| malandrew wrote:
| > I think it's more important to have tooling that can tell
| when a video has been altered.
|
| It's probably going to be a cat and mouse game. Think about
| how far along green screen technology has come. You watch a
| movie in the 80s and 90s today and the green screening is
| super obvious to our 2020 trained eyes. Imagine how someone
| from the 80s and 90s would perceive the greenscreening from
| 2020?
|
| I imagine there will always be a cutting edge of deepfakes
| that will travel halfway around the world before the truth
| comes out and won't spread to all the people that believed
| the fake.
|
| I can't help but to think that as a society, we're entering
| the "schizophrenic" phase of popular reality.
|
| Read these quora answers on what it's like to have
| schizophrenia and think "What would a society collectively
| afflicted in the same way behave?"
|
| https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-have-
| schizophrenia-...
|
| It's going to be weird to see society have to operate in a
| state of constant disbelief of so many things that were
| previously accepted as fact.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| This seems absolutely inevitable.
|
| More practically, PGP.
| prutschman wrote:
| So I can cryptographically prove that at a particular date at a
| particular time with a particular camera that I authentically
| pointed my camera at a screen projecting faked content?
|
| I think this only works if you're signing something currently
| much harder to fake, like a full light-field or something, and
| even then it won't stay hard to fake forever.
| tetraodonpuffer wrote:
| You could have the camera record the lidar also and crypto
| sign that too. Assuming it is all done in camera and the
| lidar is high resolution enough it should be possible to
| completely tamper proof a video recording at least at the
| "talking head" level.
|
| I think Apple could possibly start providing this for iPhone
| videos if they decided to as the hardware is all there
| already both the lidar sensor as well as the Secure Enclave
| etc
| malandrew wrote:
| I think this idea of adding additional layers is on the
| right track because it confounds the deepfake generation
| problem by adding a curse of dimensionality. You can't just
| fake 2D. You need to fake 3D which is much harder.
|
| I'm curious what the equivalent of "3D" to "2D" will be for
| deepfaked voice would be.
| drdeca wrote:
| I know they don't currently do this, but if GPS satellites
| cryptographically signed their timing signals, could that
| potentially be usable to establish that, in addition to the
| particular camera capturing the images at a particular time,
| that it also did so in a particular-ish place ?
|
| It's possible to record and replay signals from gps
| satellites with different delays, so maybe that could be used
| to spoof the location, but if the camera also has an internal
| clock, perhaps it could detect if there was too much
| discrepancy there? But I don't know how much that could
| constrain the location. Also gps only has limited precision,
| especially indoors? Uh, maybe using cell towers instead of,
| or in addition to, gps would be better? Hm.
| Accujack wrote:
| You can sign the data, but it won't help.
|
| Basically, the ability to fake any video means that other data
| is needed to prove that the person/events in the video was in
| fact the person/events that that video is claimed to depict.
|
| Other proof, other measurements of the same events, etc.
|
| Deep fakes mean people will know they can't trust their eyes,
| they need to think critically. That's been true for a while,
| but now they'll know it.
|
| Which I presume is why Parker/Stone are doing this now, other
| than the obvious (make money). They're going to force people to
| recognize this is possible and how perfect the fake can be.
| oehpr wrote:
| As a side note regarding the money: My understanding is they
| had formed a studio to make a deep faked movie some time
| ~2019? I think? But covid rolled around and the studio
| dissolved. They took advantage of the contacts and assets
| they had initially made to produce this youtube video. They
| think it might be the most expensive youtube video ever made.
| tomtomtom777 wrote:
| Maybe if we start the habit of signing one's own appearances,
| this at some day will make unsigned video considered
| unreliable.
|
| But I guess this is wishful thinking given that we don't even
| generally sign written comments yet.
| ip26 wrote:
| It's a good question, crytpo can be used for this sort of
| thing. It does preclude editing, unless you also establish a
| cryptographic trust chain where each successive editor also has
| a trusted key.
|
| Probably never going to work with cameraphone journalism, but
| if we're talking about newsroom & press conference footage you
| could make it happen.
| enchiridion wrote:
| Why not? Can't there be "TLS for cameras"?
| filleokus wrote:
| Expect from editing, which, as you say should be able to be
| solved somehow (encrypt every frame?), I think the biggest
| problem is the equivalent of the "analog hole".
|
| How do you know if a signed recording is from the actual
| event, or from a camera being pointed at a screen in a pitch
| black room recording the playback of some malicious video
| trying to show said event?
| ip26 wrote:
| Trust. If the root signatory is CNN, you decide whether you
| trust CNN not to do that.
|
| Not really any different from other encryption. Your bank
| _could_ be defrauding you on the back end despite the
| verified https session. But you trust they aren 't.
| filleokus wrote:
| Why do we need to sign the video then? Isn't it enough
| for me to ensure that I have a secure TLS connection to
| https://cnn.com? Maybe for external platforms? But then
| the challenge is just proving that
| https://www.youtube.com/user/CNN/ is controlled by CNN.
| Much simpler than involving the cameras.
| ip26 wrote:
| The hope would be that if video clips _were_ verifiable,
| they would be widely _expected_ to be verified, such that
| when someone links to "old clip of Senator says
| outlandish thing", you habitually check to see if it's
| verified- no matter who or what is re-sharing it.
| prox wrote:
| I believe Canon has special cameras that the police uses. It's
| been a while but they use some encoding scheme I think.
| thenickdude wrote:
| Canon's image signing scheme was half-assed and was
| comprehensively broken, they didn't even store their signing
| keys on a secure element:
|
| https://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/news/creative-
| lifestyle/...
|
| >In Canon's second version of its ODD system, the HMAC code
| is 256 bits. The code is the same for all cameras of the same
| model. Knowing the HMAC code for one particular model allows
| the ODD to be forged for any camera within that model range,
| Sklyarov wrote
| codeulike wrote:
| I watched a few mins of this because Peter Serafinowicz retweeted
| it but I completely didn't spot that they'd put Trump's face on
| the main guy (who I think is Peter?}. He looked vaguely familiar.
| And I figured I was missing something. So that means it's both
| very convincing and a bit too subtle for me?
| codysan wrote:
| In terms of using deep fakes to impersonate political figures, I
| do think we'll ultimately be okay on that front. I can see the
| entertainment industry being flipped on it's head and fabricated
| conspiracy theories hitting a fever pitch but with initiatives
| like CAI* cropping up, my hope is that there will be a digital
| wax seal of sorts to make sure what you're seeing is what the
| author intended.
|
| * https://contentauthenticity.org
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| I am kind of waiting for both of them to become extremely right
| wing.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Content aside, this is really interesting and I hope to see them
| do more attempts at humor using deepfakes.
| jayd16 wrote:
| The ramifications for misuse are real BUT
|
| I think making a studio that specializes in this type of work is
| genius. This technology could really change the industry in
| interesting ways. Faster iteration, less re-shoots, less extras.
|
| I guess you could even "storyboard" with rough deepfakes.
|
| Pretty interesting stuff. I wonder what else people will come up
| with if this stuff becomes a shrink wrapped industry standard.
| chaoticmass wrote:
| I don't find the idea very funny or entertaining. If you have a
| funny parody show or something, it should be funny and
| entertaining without deep fakery. This seems like a gimmick that
| won't last long. Maybe it will do some good in bringing the
| issues of deep fakes into the wider public conversation though.
| toxik wrote:
| I don't find the idea of poorly drawn cartoons funny by itself
| either, it's just a technique. It'll probably look pretty
| crappy most of the time. I imagine it'll be like South Park, as
| frequently has actual people in it, doing... odd things.
| newhacker2719 wrote:
| I think it's great, there is no problem with deep fakes as long
| as it is clear they are fakes. The entire political class
| including their donors are godawful and deserve to be made fun
| of.
| samirillian wrote:
| Mary Poppins saying Fauci telling people to wear masks is a
| deepfake because Covid is fake...sorry, doesn't do it for me,
| esp. considering Fauci did, indeed, discourage people from using
| masks.
|
| Trump wrecked South Park the same way he wrecked the Daily Show.
| These people are past their time, their satire is no longer
| relevant; they too are missing the point.
| williamtwild wrote:
| "Trump wrecked South Park the same way he wrecked the Daily
| Show. "
|
| Didn't take long for the MAGA brigade to find this post.
| samirillian wrote:
| Def not MAGA.
| BenGosub wrote:
| Funny how the image caption is "Parker and Stone at a pre-corona
| premiere", when the photo is like, 20 years old, while the
| epidemic has been this year.
| daveslash wrote:
| I got a tickle out of that as well.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Let's remember their politics, though - they used to market
| themselves as "both sides are bad" indpendants/libertarians, but
| now they're full-out Trumpers.
|
| I could see clips from this show making the rounds on lower-
| information parts of social media like Facebook that are already
| prone to being hoodwinked by conservative fake news like Alex
| Jones and the like. Professionally-produced deepfakes becoming
| the exact attack on democracy that other people in this thread
| are proposing will "innoculate" us.
| dleslie wrote:
| Sassy Justice is one long gut-shot against Trump. I'm not sure
| why you think conservatives would widely share this, unless
| you're supposing that they have a good sense of humour and
| humility.
|
| And yes, all politics and public figures warrant criticism and
| satire. Cast aside your sacred cows.
| will4274 wrote:
| Should be a headline from The Onion - Famous satirist uses
| 'satire' in public; crowd (including Pxtl) unaware; takes him
| literally.
| b0rsuk wrote:
| I think the biggest casualty of deepfakes are going to be
| citizens. Record a video of police brutality or crime footage and
| it can all be shrugged off as a deep fake. TV stations and
| journalists can afford 'signed videos'.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| The type of person who will claim that has already been
| claiming 'false flag' or 'fake news' anyways.
|
| If someone has confirmation bias, they're still going to find
| ways to call it fake with or without deep fake tech.
| epistasis wrote:
| It will be much more difficult to do deepfakes of that sort.
| Doing a good deepfake requires lots of training data. We might
| be able to get away with less training data a the tech
| progresses, but that is one area that will probably be most
| difficult to make progress in.
| njharman wrote:
| Deep fakes typically are putting a face onto an actor (or other
| footage). Not faking an entire scene with multiple people,
| that's just called CGI/Animation.
|
| So you could easily take existing footage and change who it
| appears to be. But,
|
| 1) doing that to frame or unframe someone will be pretty niche
| 2) the original correct footage might still be findable 3) with
| access to the video files(which is going to be required in any
| legal situation), I'm sure there will be (exists for photos)
| algorytms that detect the editing the deepfake did to video
| file.
| strogonoff wrote:
| Deepfaking doesn't have to be used on its own. A dedicated
| entity can shoot entirely new original scenes (unique
| footage), deepfake actors' faces to look like the people
| they're targeting, edit it all together, and possibly add CG
| VFX as a final layer to make the resulting video look very
| real[0].
|
| Of course, knowing all that is not really necessary for
| someone to shrug off truthful incriminating footage as "fake
| news".
|
| [0] One caveat is that deepfaking works better with higher
| quality footage. To produce a complicated scene with altered
| actor faces while maintaining realistic "phone video" look,
| it would make sense to film with good lighting and high-
| quality gear into log or raw format, and then imitate the
| look in post-production after deepfaking is applied.
|
| Thus, one method of detecting such fakes could be by checking
| for traces of VFX, artificial noise, looking for signature
| lens properties, signature behavior of phone video recording
| "magic" (such as noise reduction and stabilization), etc.
| Enough of producer's dedication could make that tricky, but
| IMO it could be easier than applying automated deepfake
| detection straight up--it'd be buried early enough in post-
| production workflow, with a lot of noise introduced by
| subsequent "phone look" VFX.
| Forbo wrote:
| Seems like it would be pretty easy to add a way to sign a video
| using keys stored in a phone's enclave, surely Apple and Google
| are capable of doing so.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Maybe in the court of public opinion, but I doubt it would
| matter much in actual court. Chain of custody for video
| evidence has always mattered there.
| serial_dev wrote:
| I also don't think that politicians will suffer the most. Some
| people already know that social websites are full of fake
| videos, pictures and quotes from politicians. The others who
| don't know that already, could be more economically tricked,
| for example use a picture of a politician, place some
| outrageous quote next to him/her with Comic Sans, and some will
| believe that, too.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| People weren't walking around with cameras all the time 10-15
| years ago and the world functioned still.
| racl101 wrote:
| True. I've already noticed people who aren't cynical, become
| cynical after seeing some deepfake videos. This, coupled with
| confirmation bias will not help real victims who are regular
| citizens.
| feralimal wrote:
| Well, personally I think deep fakes are a good thing.
|
| The reality is that 'we' were too trusting of what is presented
| on screens as true. Its the main piece that is used to manage and
| govern us.
|
| So, I welcome distrust on what we see on screens - that trust was
| always misplaced, and all about manipulation rather than
| information.
| malandrew wrote:
| Who was Lou Chang? I didn't recognize who that was a deepfake of.
| dole wrote:
| Julie Andrews
| chrisjc wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure why it reminds me of the old UK show
| Spitting Image.
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086807/
| crtasm wrote:
| Spitting Image just started up again after 14 years. It's not
| amazing but worth a look:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_Image_(2020_TV_series...
| juskrey wrote:
| Talking TV heads are already deep fakes. I'm glad computer fakes
| will finally erode the confidence of public into those people,
| from news anchors to presidents. Took almost a century to arrive
| here.
| pengaru wrote:
| While I agree on your first point, the rest completely misses
| that the public will continue to be tribal and instead _only_
| believe the talking heads of their given tribe as authentic in
| a world rife with deep fakes.
|
| I fully expect the outcome to be increased tribalism, when
| faith in your tribe's leadership and information sources is the
| only source of comfort, confidence, and "truth".
|
| I don't think it will be the opposite where everything is
| questioned and critical thinking suddenly becomes prolific as
| you seem to imply.
| juskrey wrote:
| Local talking heads by definition can be punched into the
| face, seen in the local coffeeshop etc. They have skin in the
| game. Presidents don't.
| pengaru wrote:
| What does that have to do with deep fakes pushing consumers
| of Fox News talking heads further into the arms of Fox
| News?
|
| Are you imagining if Tucker Carlson were punched in the
| face at his local coffee shop, he'd shut up? :rolleyes: His
| following would only grow larger and more supportive as he
| milked the controversy for all its worth.
| nautilus12 wrote:
| This feels like its stolen from Kyle Dunnigan
| nemo44x wrote:
| Dark days ahead for Hollywood. How long until Silicon Valley eats
| that industry?
|
| I can imagine lifelike movies that render characters to the users
| preference in real-time.
|
| Talk about "representation"!
|
| I can imagine as well dialects, language, etc being rendered in
| real time to adapt to what the user prefers. You and another
| person could watch the same film and talk about the same story
| but have totally different experiences on what the characters
| looked like, talked like, and even said within some parameters.
|
| Making a movie with humans will be a prestige event like riding
| horses today or driving an ICE in the future. They don't be able
| to compete with rendered film at a mass scale due to cost.
| Rendered films could be built and distributed cheaply and cost a
| fraction of a real movie to watch.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Really that would be a good thing for "character actors" as it
| goes less on image and more on as what they need to contribute
| is creative to be a collaborator instead of a "living prop".
|
| What would be interesting would be the techniques used. Are
| they like animators or roleplayers focused on a single
| character to give them emotional touches in added details,
| quirks, and improved line changes or "greenscreened" such that
| what they actually look like is utterly irrelevant to their
| job?
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| They would make their living by licensing the likeness of
| actors. Because you might have a great rendered movie, but most
| people will want a great rendered movie with Tom Cruise and
| Samuel L Jackson, not with nonane actors.
| utexaspunk wrote:
| Until you make a completely artificial persona that gets
| famous.
| marwatk wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_(2002_film)
| tobr wrote:
| YouTube is trying to autoplay a Fox Business live MAGA event
| after this. I suppose they're in the same category - misleading
| videos featuring Trump?
| sacredcows wrote:
| Awesome, maybe they'll add more climate change denialism into the
| mainstream /s
| craftinator wrote:
| I'd be very interested in a show where they have deepfakes of
| politicians reading FOIA obtained emails that they wrote. It
| would be a positive use for a technology that has some pretty
| negative use cases =)
| koiz wrote:
| Amazing.
| tremon wrote:
| Regardless of the actual content or quality of the show, I hope
| this reaches a wide audience. All people should know about the
| technical capabilities of deepfakes.
| zeroping wrote:
| Is this a method to innoculate the viewer against deepfakes? I
| wonder if part of thief goal is to specifically make people
| more aware?
| dleslie wrote:
| Matt and Trey usually have an interesting side project on the
| go; where South Park pays the bills, shows like The Book of
| Mormon and Sassy Justice are their creative expression.
| yalogin wrote:
| Deepfakes have the potential to turn the word upside down and
| cause utter chaos in the world. I don't know how we are going to
| deal with it as a society, I think we are not equipped for it. In
| fact I fully expected trump to use it for the October surprise,
| but I guess he didn't go there for whatever reason.
| tsomctl wrote:
| Create short deepfakes that can go viral and be so ridiculous
| that they're both entertaining and obviously fake. Obama
| advocating for a border wall. Al Gore lobbying for the oil
| industry. Steve Jobs advising against staring at a screen all
| day.
| iso1210 wrote:
| > Obama advocating for a border wall
|
| Would be used as evidence of how untrustworthy the Dems are.
|
| This video of two opponents endorsing each other cropped up
| last year.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-50381728
| MadSudaca wrote:
| I hold a similar view. In my opinion Deepfakes will help
| accelerate the end of the democracy experiment, and you know
| what? good riddance.
|
| Only people that know you on, at least, a last name basis,
| should have political power over you.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| If you think the end of democracy will mean the end of people
| having power over you who don't know your name, I have some
| really bad news.
| MadSudaca wrote:
| At least under this scheme I'll have an easier time telling
| my friends from my enemies.
| LanceH wrote:
| The governments will get it right this time. They just need
| absolutely authority to ensure it goes smoothly for
| everyone.
| nemo44x wrote:
| The problem has always been accountability. If we can
| devise a system that includes accountability in the
| authority we could be on to something.
|
| Democracy has accountability by virtue of everyone having
| a vote. It's a small power that everyone can use to hold
| their leaders to account. But it still allows people to
| hold arbitrary power over each other. If you can convince
| enough people, you can apply your morals and beliefs on
| others. For instance, lots of discrimination is a
| function of democracy and codifying oppression of certain
| people.
|
| We sit here furiously debating who can use a bathroom,
| who gets preferential treatment, who you have to interact
| with and a million other things. "Both sides" are bent on
| forcing people to behave a certain way and they use the
| power of the vote everyone has to accumulate power and
| make things "how they ought to be".
|
| I think this could be done democratically but everyone
| has different interests. How do we find a common,
| singular interest and then optimize around that?
|
| Or maybe democracy is the "best bad system" and we just
| have to make do. I do believe with the hyper connected
| world we have today, cryptography, and resource abundance
| that we could transcend the modern system and discover
| liberation from each other to be ourselves and pursue
| truly enriching lives at a mass scale within local
| communities. And this means a different thing to
| different people. But just about everything in our modern
| system would need to be disposed of and recast.
| utexaspunk wrote:
| I think it's all fucked until we can get humans out of
| the loop entirely. The sooner we can develop benevolent
| AI overlords the better.
| Veen wrote:
| That view makes sense if the only alternatives are democracy,
| extreme localism, and benign anarchy. A brief historical
| survey should suffice to demonstrate that there are, in fact,
| other less pleasant alternatives.
| Miner49er wrote:
| True, but maybe deepfakes can help challenge or prevent the
| "alternatives"? They are fairly cheap to make. They seem
| like they could be a great tool for challenging
| authoritarianism.
| aiyodev wrote:
| I think you're right. It sounds like their plans fell through:
|
| https://outline.com/FuBxnT
| notanotherycom1 wrote:
| If an _obvious_ lie can consistently fool 80% of the players in
| among us (details below) then I can imagine deepfakes will fool
| just as many people despite how obvious it is. By obvious I
| mean almost 100% of the time it 's a lie and people fall for it
|
| -------
|
| I played maybe a hundred games of among us (they can be very
| short). The game is about one or more imposters trying to
| murder the rest of the crew but you'll have to be discreet and
| get/find people alone so you don't get voted off. When a body
| is found a meeting happens and you can lie (text chat)
|
| One problem is you don't want to accuse someone when you're an
| imposter because you immediately become suspicious. Most games
| will tell you if you voted off an imposter or not so they'll
| know you're lieing right away once game tells them they voted a
| non imposter. Most of the time you want to accuse noone, play
| dumb and act like you're everyeone else and saw nothing.
|
| I lost count when a guy doesn't accuse anyone for 20+seconds,
| get accused then claims the guy who found the body is an
| imposter and all these things he did that are suspicious. (why
| didn't you say it right away?!). Like 90+% of the time the guy
| being accused is the imposter who waited so he can feel the
| situation out. It's _extremely obvious_ but maybe 70% of the
| time literally _every player_ but me and the guy reporting the
| body is fooled. Which is far too many players at a far too high
| fool rate. It 's so painful because it's so obvious. 90+% of
| the time in that scenario the reporting guy is telling the
| truth.
| csmattryder wrote:
| In the early days, you could spot one by the lack of blinking
| because the model was trained on open-eyed images. Not sure if
| that's still the case, I'd be surprised if it was.
|
| Any time I see a "this is peak technology" comment, I'm always
| reminded of the PC gaming magazine cover showing the first
| Unreal game's graphics ("Yes, that's an actual PC
| screenshot!").
|
| It looks awful now, but in the nineties, it blew us all away.
|
| https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/5b/d9/d15bd9f544e6fd4bf740...
| lagadu wrote:
| These do blink so it's no longer an issue. It's still not
| perfect because other than blinking the eyes have no
| expression to them, they're mostly still which is very
| unnerving once you start paying attention to that (it's also
| how you can tell a fake from a genuine smile). But we're at
| the point where unless you're looking for it, it's easy to
| believe.
| ip26 wrote:
| People didn't think it looked like reality. Back in that
| time, marketing used a lot of illustration to promote the
| game that had little connection to the in-game
| visualizations. So that cover is more saying, "This wasn't
| drawn by an artist".
| whatnojeez wrote:
| > In fact I fully expected trump to use it for the October
| surprise, but I guess he didn't go there for whatever reason.
|
| Because he's not the cartoon supervillain you think he is?
| pessimizer wrote:
| He has to be a supervillain, or else how could he have
| defeated the perfect team that ran the perfect campaign for
| the perfect candidate in 2016?
| codysan wrote:
| People have had the opportunity to impersonate anyone they'd
| like over the radio for over 100 years and yet, here we still
| stand.
| opwieurposiu wrote:
| He has hunter's laptop, no reason to lie.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| The catholic church survived the printing press. We'll be fine.
| Maybe not all of us will live to see it but society and its
| institutions will go on.
| readams wrote:
| People are going crazy over deepfakes but we've had Photoshop for
| a long time and the world hasn't ended. We find ways to verify
| the content of photos through other means, such as their
| provenance.
| justEgan wrote:
| Something to consider is that we already had video when
| photoshop arrived, which is able to merit at least more
| authenticity than images do. Are there other mediums that's
| able to take this baton of authenticity now? I don't think so.
| patcon wrote:
| i dunno, seems pretty significant to me. used to be that we
| only had to be skeptical of blurry newspapers photos, then
| detailed photos, then videos without people as giveaway, now
| highly detailed videos and audio aren't trustable. You don't
| think it seems significant that it's getting to a point where
| only "seeing with your eyes" is believing? All our systems of
| spreading information beyond our senses start to fail when we
| can't trust anything outside our perceived experience (or
| things brought to us by our trusted friends)
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Blurring around the face edges and mismatched lighting still
| give them away. Time will tell if the machines can overcome a
| trained eye.
| godelski wrote:
| I think that is a bit of selection bias. Outside of what
| I've seen in papers Ctrl Click Face[0] has some of the best
| "in practice" deep fakes I've seen. The video in the main
| post is meant to be a joke. But these still aren't state of
| the art and really are just "some dude" that is doing this
| on their own. Not a production studio. What I think is
| different here is that we can think that: photoshop got so
| good that your average person can create convincingly fake
| content. At the end of the day deep fakes are part of
| photoshop (I mean they have neural filters now...). The
| question is more about ease of use. "Requires a team of
| highly trained special effects artists" vs "some dude in
| his basement and a shiny computer."
|
| And a big part is that you have prior knowledge. I'll be
| honest, I didn't realize it was Trump at first. Nor did a
| friend that I sent the video to that didn't have the prior
| that all characters were fake. Took him a good minute.
| That's a meaningful difference.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3pV-_iyT4U
| stevofolife wrote:
| The problem isn't about the existence though. Accessibility and
| convenience to use this type of technology are the issues here.
| ACow_Adonis wrote:
| except (in my experience as a photographer), most/a significant
| chunk of the general public not only don't understand
| photoshop, but will actively disbelieve you about the extent,
| purpose and outcome of manipulations.
|
| Also, it's one thing to say the world hasn't ended, but that's
| to potentially downplay at a minimum the idea that commercial
| and widespread use of photoshop hasn't had widespread effects
| on body and self-image, creating and interacting with arguably
| culture-bound psychological issues such as anorexia, bulimia,
| unnecessary surgery, self- harm, suicide, etc. Or to take
| examples from non Anglo culture, eyelid removal, skin
| whitening, nose surgery, etc.
|
| it's true that the world hasn't ended, but that's a thought
| terminating cliche. there's a lot of evidence it's creating and
| created significant harm and significant effects.
| ufmace wrote:
| It helps that a lot of the photoshops going around the
| internet are either super-sloppy or depict things that are
| obviously ridiculous. I actually can't think of any time
| somebody tried to alter a photo in a way that would change
| the meaning in a believable way and distributed it in such a
| way that they were trying to convince people it was real.
| Have I missed something?
| spurgu wrote:
| Are you blind at how stupid people are verifying even the basic
| things?
| watwut wrote:
| We as a culture are not able to verify content of deceptively
| cut videos.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Verifiable content is definitely not the norm through history.
| I'd love to see an academic analysis of whether misinformation
| really went down by much (if at all) when photography became a
| thing. Or when camera phones and social media came along.
|
| Yesterday there was a fake Trump tweet with a zillion upvotes
| on Reddit, and that's just text. Text is trivial to fake, so
| maybe the chain of trust we see in text is what we'll see with
| everything else moving forward. "An anonymous source within the
| White House provided this footage," being countered with, "you
| can't trust anonymous sources!" It will come down to who you
| trust, just like it always has.
| fullshark wrote:
| Looking at the video here, the two best by far are the Michael
| Caine and Julie Andrews deep fakes, and in both cases the voice
| is doing most of the heavy lifting. Deepfake audio is somewhat
| scarier to me in terms of political / legal chaos than video,
| much easier to possibly trick someone with a "secret" audio
| recording than video recording if we some day get to the point
| of near identical audio mimicry.
| DerDangDerDang wrote:
| Not sure there's any deepfakery on the Michael Caine audio.
| Peter Serafinowicz (the other collaborator and originator of
| 'sassy Trump') is well known for his Michael Caine
| impersonation.
| filoleg wrote:
| >Not sure there's any deepfakery on the Michael Caine audio
|
| Most likely not, and the parent comment seems to agree with
| you on that. I think they were just trying to point out, in
| general, that the arrival of commonplace audio deepfakes
| might be way more disruptive than video deepfakes, despite
| a lot of people (including myself) who used to counter-
| intuitively think that video deepfakes would be more
| disruptive.
| DerDangDerDang wrote:
| Fair point, and I agree audio is potentially more
| disruptive - especially if it can get to good real-time
| performance.
| lillesvin wrote:
| Audio deepfakes are getting better but they have a
| surprisingly long way to go still.
|
| Here's an exploration of a deepfaked Jay-Z reading/rapping
| the Navy Seal copypasta:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZzYoOdIXoQ
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-11-02 23:01 UTC)