[HN Gopher] Deepfakes, can you spot them? ___________________________________________________________________ Deepfakes, can you spot them? Author : T-A Score : 41 points Date : 2022-03-08 20:19 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (detectfakes.media.mit.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (detectfakes.media.mit.edu) | aidanhs wrote: | Honestly, I struggled with this overall. | | For context: I'm mostly unaware of actions of US presidents | (beyond the broad sweeps based on left vs right) and I've at most | listened to Trump and Biden maybe a couple of times for a total | of ~1min in the last few years - just doing this exercise has | probably at least doubled my exposure. | | I found the text and voice mostly impossible unless the content | clued me in. Video was a little easier because I know to look for | teeth, video with sound was fairly easy. | | Is there a generic trick for recognising faked voices without | really knowing the original (similar to looking for teeth on | videos)? | bobsmooth wrote: | For the speech clips I thought the disjointedness of the words | made it obvious. That being said, Trump has a very recognizable | way of talking so his clips were really easy to sort. | mywacaday wrote: | Why doesn't the survey give you a score after completion? Very | frustrating! | leto_ii wrote: | Yes! Or even better, a score distribution together with your | percentile. | smdz wrote: | The audio gives away. The fake audio is either of too monotonic | or rythmic like singing a song | dogman144 wrote: | Been wondering about this in context of UKR and the huge role of | open source intel via mobile phone videos in it. For | understandable reasons it's not part of the discussion right now | but there might be interesting retrospectives about this | available down the line. | junon wrote: | These are super easy compared to some I've seen. | | Anyway, THANK YOU site developers for properly handling | resumption of progress and not abusing the history API. Greatly | appreciated and unfortunately very rare for these sorts of sites. | BugsJustFindMe wrote: | The quality of the fakes is atrocious. Their audio clips don't | even sound like deep fakes. They just sound like really terrible | amateur impersonators. | pqdbr wrote: | I only did 13, and got 100% right. | alpb wrote: | Mildly surprised the quality of this project coming out of MIT. | Not only the UI was quite hard to use, I could not get beyond | 10 samples. They were annoyingly obvious. Why would they not | choose to not to make this as tricky as possible? | squeaky-clean wrote: | I only did 12 of them before exiting but got 100% of them. I | watched them on my phone without turning it landscape to simulate | how I'd normally watch a brief news clip like this. | | They're still not particularly convincing, especially the audio | ones sound very fake. | | But I think these sorts of tests are flawed. The fact that it's a | test primes you to look for these details in a way you might not | if these clips were shared on Twitter/Reddit/etc. The deepfakes | are still pretty obviously fake, so I don't think I'd fall for | one "in the wild". But I also see this style of test used for | things like "can you hear the difference between these 2 audio | compression formats" or "does this virtual guitar amp sound just | like the real thing", and that's just not how you consume real | media. For example I'd probably never know Meshuggah switched to | entirely digital guitar amps years ago if it weren't for them | saying it in interviews. | | When deepfakes one day do get as close to the real thing as | digital guitar amps have gotten to real amps, I doubt I'd notice | a random r/worldnews post is faked, even if I could still | reliably pass an A/B test. | sebow wrote: | The video look worse than "professional fakes" long even before | AI.Text is the hardest for people who don't follow those specific | people(though it is still easy to spot the fake), and audio is | very easy aswell. | | Not boasting, just reality.I've seen some pretty astounding | deepfakes, these are not part of those. | alamortsubite wrote: | Given how easy the fakes are to spot, the delay the devs put on | activating the submit button is frustrating. | NewEntryHN wrote: | The best deepfake I've seen is the Tom Cruise one | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyiOVUbsPcM | hombre_fatal wrote: | Whoever makes those is an artist. Those impressions alone are | great. | seg_lol wrote: | We should send in Sassy Justice to investigate right now! | | https://www.youtube.com/c/SassyJustice/featured | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | There is a smoothness to the fake audio and video with audio | clips that makes them very obvious. | arez wrote: | This is too easy, I struggled a bit with no sound but video to | detect real or fake because the lighting can be a bit weird but | for the voices you can hear it in a split second that they're | fake | Arainach wrote: | Agreed. The video and text fakes are getting better, but the | audio (at least here) isn't close. It's not even an uncanny | valley, it's worse than an SNL parody. | | In cases without audio, watching the lips for sync was also a | reliable giveaway. | bombcar wrote: | It's almost so bad it's trying to convince people they're | better at detecting deepfakes than they actually are ... | boomboomsubban wrote: | I only did about half of the samples, but things became | harder further in. I'm not sure if they were better done or | I was just becoming bored and losing focus though. | version_five wrote: | I didn't do the test. My first thought was that it's the wrong | question. A "trusted sources" model for believing stuff can | always be gamed. There should be more focus on independent | confirmation, and general sanity checking, rather than caring | about whether a video is fake or not, especially if one is going | to take some action based on the content. | cf141q5325 wrote: | Why the downvote? I think he is making a solid point. Just | trusting your senses will become problematic fast. | leto_ii wrote: | This was an unsatisfying experience. The visual and audio fakes | are easy to spot, while the texts are short enough and correct | enough that you don't have enough to go with in making a | technical decision. I did however get them right by trying to | figure out if the statement made sense in the context of the | respective politician's general stance on the issue discussed. | | Update: | | Come to think of it, IRL text deep fakes don't even make sense. | You can make up whatever quotes you like, you don't need GPT3 to | do it for you. | echelon wrote: | > Come to think of it, IRL text deep fakes don't even make | sense. You can make up whatever quotes you like, you don't need | GPT3 to do it for you. | | Exactly. John Oliver pointed out a few weeks ago that the | Russian media was using stock footage of other nation's | military actions (Finland?) for propaganda. No need for deep | fakes. The lowest effort lie can still work. | | Deep fake tech is the new photoshop. It's mostly used for good | (art, memes, jokes with friends, Disney films). | | You can imagine a future where deep fakes are utterly | indistinguishable from real life, but I think that people will | learn to recalibrate themselves against the new technologies. | It may even cause us to think more critically: people | frequently chime in, "how is this not photoshopped?" on social | media. They'll call out videos of explosions and physics as | "looking fake". They'll have the same response to purported | deep faked videos. | | All the same, I'm glad and appreciate that academic and policy | folks are taking a close look at the technology. We need | frameworks, ethics, and institutional familiarity. | [deleted] | Traster wrote: | Honestly, I think this level of "fakery" is a little... facile. | Firstly, practically no one judges individual clips, they're | judging based on who is bringing it to them and who they trust. | Secondly, Donald Trump could say the most dispicable things and | still get elected. People seem to forget that Trump got caught on | a hot mic admitting to sexually assaulting women, and that he got | elected _after_ that. | tiborsaas wrote: | This was very easy. I skipped the text based ones, I can't keep | up with the random things politicians say :) | Miner49er wrote: | I'm pretty certain that in at least one of these Trump is | standing in front of a green screen, I put fabricated, but I | guess that was wrong to do because that wasn't fabricated with | AI? Either way this said it was real, which yeah it was, but the | setting was faked. Idk. | radford-neal wrote: | The test seems flawed. I got the first one (after the attention | check) wrong - I said it was fake, but it was real. I thought it | was fake because Trump's hair was clearly very smeared out, not | at all realistic. But it seems that this must have been an | artifact of heavy video compression. I don't see how this is a | meaningful test of anything. | eropple wrote: | Most social video on the internet is over compressed junk. I | was surprised when they used clips that _weren 't_. | radford-neal wrote: | Yeah, but how is the test taker supposed to know whether to | take the smearing as indicating it's fake or not? | | Better would be to let them see 10 videos all at once, half | of which are fake, and ask them to divide into a fake set of | 5 and a real set of 5, after looking at all of them as many | times as they like. Asking "fake or real" when there is no | basis to tell whether flaws should be taken as indicating | "fake" or just attributed to compression seems meaningless. | | Or tell people what aspects of fakeness they're trying to | assess - eg, forget about video artifacts, just pay attention | to the audio. | | Using clips of Trump and Biden is also a bad idea. They ask | you to say if you've seen one before, but aren't many people | going to have seen one, but not clearly remember that, and | then be influenced to think it's real by sub-conscious | recognition? | | Why not present pairs of videos of the same non-famous | person, one fake one real, both presented with the same | amount of compression, and ask one to chose which is the real | one? Using many different people, of course - why would you | introduce doubt about the generality of your results by using | only two people? | | Of course, in practice people may be less able to recognize | fakes when video quality is poor, which would be useful to | know, but I think one would need to investigate that issue | separately, not in combination with other reasons that fakes | might or might not be recognizable. | qw3rty01 wrote: | I really wish they took actual things the individual said in the | past, but used a deepfake for them actually saying it. Most of | the deepfakes were easy to spot, but a couple weren't clear at | first that they were fake, only to be given away by the content | of their speech. | bufferoverflow wrote: | The point of a deep fake is usually for the fake to say | something new and outrageous. | squeaky-clean wrote: | It doesn't necessarily have to be. For example what if you | modified a clip of a political candidate asking for funding | and only modified the name of the organization/website their | supporters should go to in order to donate. | orblivion wrote: | You know, I sort of don't want to help them figure out which ones | are more believable. | fancymcpoopoo wrote: | maybe the research is really about identifying you as a liar | kerblang wrote: | My favorite deep fake is still Sassy Justice | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM | | Ha it keeps on giving, note the picture on wall at | https://youtu.be/9WfZuNceFDM | marstall wrote: | any kind of information can contain falsehoods - and every form | of discourse has its biases. so consider the source - and | consider multiple sources! | cf141q5325 wrote: | For better audio check the channel Vocal Synthesis | | >Barack Obama reads the Navy Seals Copypasta (Speech Synthesis) | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_MZI2YFWgI | | Or here him reading Trumps inauguration speech | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChzEdz7aVVs | | All based on | https://ai.googleblog.com/2017/12/tacotron-2-generating-huma... | bloaf wrote: | Yes. | | The video fakes are always blurry around the mouth and gestures | don't match the words. | | The audio fakes are too "clean" (too defined breaks between words | and no background noise) and sound like caricatures. | | Text is virtually impossible because politicians say "fake" stuff | all the time (e.g. speeches someone else wrote) so you can't rely | on uncharacteristic language. | bobsmooth wrote: | I found the grammar of the fake text just off enough to pick | them out consistently. | ComradePhil wrote: | Too easy. | | Also, the fake ones with audio or text from Trump are way too | easy for anyone who has seen Trump over the years to guess (as | opposed to those who know Trump from "comedy news shows" from the | last few years)... because Trump wouldn't say some of those | things (anti-gay marriage stuff, for example). | | Biden is a bit more difficult to guess like that because he could | have said anything which he thought would be popular at a given | point throughout his career... but then the technology is too bad | to actually be convincing enough. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-08 23:01 UTC)