Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#31

Post by wukerplank »

nukeop wrote: post #29
justonepost wrote: post #22

I've always felt that deepfakes are a net positive. Think of all the revenge videos that will be rendered moot. The Jennifer Lawrences of the world can stop stressing because nobody will take any of it seriously anymore. It's kind of like those pornographic clones of popular kids cartoons. People freaked out at first, but really you don't hear much about it these days. Sort of like an anti-virus inoculation when you…

I don't think Jennifer Lawrence was particularly saddened about increased media attention around her that was timed precisely at the peak of her career.

Shameful assumption.

I can't imagine she (or any other victim of the leak) enjoyed having their private lives and most intimate moments being accessible to the whole world.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#32

Post by telesilla »

andreascmj wrote: post #20
Choco31415 wrote: post #3

10+ years ago we started getting the technologies for facial land mark detection, and now we have facial swapping. Currently we have the beginnings of good full-body pose derection, and I imagine soon we’ll eventually have full body swapping (maybe along with clothes). That raises interesting questions. As legitimate looking sources become harder to trust, what other ways can we verify them? One idea that was floatin…

Couldn't blockchain be a great tool here? The original hash is uploaded to the blockchain at the time of the recording, then you can verify that nothing has changed since then.

There is already tech in filming to know what camera filmed what footage. I imagine there will be some kind of process happening soon that links footage through its changes, all the way from capture to broadcast.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#33

Post by annabellish »

sdrothrock wrote: post #11
tbabb wrote: post #5

The era of verifiability-- when photographic and video evidence could plausibly be trusted-- is over. Photos have been dubious since photoshop, but still required expertise and artistry to use. Fake moving pictures required considerably more extensive expertise, lots of time, and usually specialized equipment. None of that is true anymore. We are back to a pre-industrial age of discourse, where rumor and hearsay and…

> The era of verifiability-- when photographic and video evidence could plausibly be trusted-- is over. If ease of producing convincing fakes of X means that the era of X as convincing proof is over, then why are signatures and written documents still taken as proof? I think it just means that things will be scrutinized more carefully from now on, and that there will need to be a stronger document trail. > We are bac…

Signatures _aren't_ hard proof, they're absolutely contestable. Images and videos once were hard proof, but now are becoming contestable.

I wonder how long it will be before we see journalism-focussed photography equipment automatically generating a secure cryptographic signature for each shot. A particularly fancy implementation could be signed by both the manufacturer and the photographer, offering two assertions the shot is valid and undoctored. Going back to a reputation system still isn't great, but it's a lot better than a "pre-industrial state of discourse"

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#34

Post by golergka »

tbabb wrote: post #5

The era of verifiability-- when photographic and video evidence could plausibly be trusted-- is over. Photos have been dubious since photoshop, but still required expertise and artistry to use. Fake moving pictures required considerably more extensive expertise, lots of time, and usually specialized equipment. None of that is true anymore. We are back to a pre-industrial age of discourse, where rumor and hearsay and…

FYI, russian propaganda machine routinely uses videos from videogames and movies as "documents" in TV broadcasts. [1] Despite the fact that reports debunking these "proofs" appear in the next day or so, there's no backlash or retractions. Hell, even russian defense ministry used insanely crude photoshopped images in it's reports, and still - no backlash, at all. [2]

My point is, if you just want to brainwash the population, these new technologies are overkill. People aren't generally smart enough to require this sophistication from a fake.

[1]: https://gizmodo.com/russian-state-tv-airs-video-game-clip-as...

[2]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/kremlin-falls-for-its-own-fake...

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#36

Post by John_KZ »

zapita wrote: post #27
tjoff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that matter? On Internet the judgement is quick, long before the truth has revealed itself lives has been destroyed, jobs lost and reputation irreparably damaged.

But that was already true with words alone. Lives are already ruined every day by baseless claims with zero evidence, no video required. People who already research the source of words before forming an opinion will now research the source of videos, too. Those who are fooled by written and spoken lies will also be fooled by animated ones.

Words have almost no impact compared to visual imagery. Even if the words come from the mouth or pen of a respected individual, you can still doubt it, and usually people do.

However, whether we like it or not, everything we see, at least on a subsconscious level, we perceive as real.

My assumption would be that we have no evolutionary resistance to that. I don't know if there can be at all. People have been lying from our fist day of existence, but up until very recent times, there has never existed anything in nature that can create arbitrary images that look 100% real.

It doesn't matter if it's fake or not, if you see a convincing version of your president fucking a pig, you'll never forget about it, and you'll always attach that image to him. Similarly, people often can't differentiate between an actors character and the real person. Whether it's Macron on his campaign film or Gandalf on lotr, you associate that person with your simulated experience.

Animated lies are on a completely different tier of immersiveness and deception than speech or writing. You can't reduce this development to "just another lie". It's very close to the most convincing lies possible, and it's definitely very dangerous.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#37

Post by IkmoIkmo »

justonepost wrote: post #22

I've always felt that deepfakes are a net positive. Think of all the revenge videos that will be rendered moot. The Jennifer Lawrences of the world can stop stressing because nobody will take any of it seriously anymore. It's kind of like those pornographic clones of popular kids cartoons. People freaked out at first, but really you don't hear much about it these days. Sort of like an anti-virus inoculation when you…

We're already getting close to the point where it's technically feasible to to enter a facebook profile and press a button for a sex tape to be created from a mix of FB photos and porn websites, for any choice among a billion people, that's a problem. The fact you can tell your parents, colleagues or school friends how easy it is to do so and that it's not really you, is not a net positive if you ask me.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#38

Post by runeks »

Anyone else rather unimpressed by the realism of these fake videos? I mean, technologically it’s cool and all, but it seems more like a proof of concept than anything that can be used to fool humans.

All the videos I’ve watched — out of technical curiosity, naturally — have had some sort of glitch that made it obvious it was fake. I think this technology will have a serious problems just mapping the facial expressions of one person onto another, since many people have their own distinct facial expressions.

The linked YouTube channel with the Putin video[1] is a good example: it looks completely unrealistic because the actor in the source video makes facial expressions Putin would never make.

In my personal opinion, I think it will take decades before this technology becomes good enough to fool humans, and probably longer before it can fool humans closely related to the subjects of the fake videos — if this ever becomes possible at all. The fundamental challenge is mapping the emotions of one person to another’s, which isn’t easily solvable. Just mapping the facial features of Putin onto SNL’s Beck Bennett isn’t going to convince anyone familiar with how Putin looks and acts.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxFqxCaQcM

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#39

Post by adamnemecek »

runeks wrote: post #38

Anyone else rather unimpressed by the realism of these fake videos? I mean, technologically it’s cool and all, but it seems more like a proof of concept than anything that can be used to fool humans. All the videos I’ve watched — out of technical curiosity, naturally — have had some sort of glitch that made it obvious it was fake. I think this technology will have a serious problems just mapping the facial expression…

Here’s the thing, they don’t need to convince you, even five percent of people seeing this is enough. Bombard them with this nonstop and like legit warp their reality so that they believe it. This vocal minority can influence quite a bit of the rest of society.
Post reply on HN