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

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#71

Post by mattmanser »

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…

1. The tech's only get better

2. Hire an actor with a similar build/face to putin and act like him. Get him to film what you want, deepfake it, done.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#72

Post by pjc50 »

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…

No, it means all the weaponised shaming can be applied to people who've never even taken nude photos.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#73

Post by lawlessone »

nukeop wrote: post #57
lz400 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't "assure" stuff you have no idea about. Fact is JLaw was very upset about the leaks and reacted so badly to it that most of reddit style sites fell out of love with her because she didn't appreciate having her photos leaked or didn't just laugh it off and that was considered out of character for her.

Yes, because celebrities are known for genuine reactions in media and not maintaining a carefully crafted public persona for the purposes of publicity.

I guess they can't be human to you, just robots that feed on any publicity?

Does it work for everyone?

Maybe i should throw some nudes of myself up on my CV...

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#74

Post by purple-again »

Choco31415 wrote: post #4
iopuy wrote: post #2

Since reddit banned deepfakes, including SFW content, does anyone know where the community is now congregating? The appeal of the technology from online avatars to cheaper cgi is undeniable. Is this a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

There is one mention here: “Following the ban, many of the users moved to the /deepfakes/ board on 8chan[18] and the /v/DeepFakes community on Voat.[17]” [0] [0] - http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cultures/deepfakes?full=1

This is so frustrating and depressing. I'm come from the hobby indie movie production side of things and something like this would be so amazing. I came here all excited to see where I can dip into the technology and this is what I find...two asshole corners of the internet I would never frequent.

Can you imagine Reddit banning Photoshop and all other photo editing technology because a bunch of guys used it to post boobies on photos of women?

I honestly can't believe this even happened.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#75

Post by krapp »

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…

It's not as if people were fact checking CNN and Fox or running forensic analysis to scrupulously determine the plausibility of the stories in their newsfeed to begin with.

As far as society and its trust (or lack thereof) in digital media is concerned this won't change much. Most people believe what they want to believe, and doubt what they don't, trust the in group and doubt the out group.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#76

Post by gpvos »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #13
gnbfulbvgjbvv wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is an opportunity for new technology that adds additional data stream(s) to audio/video to ensure authenticity. Perhaps something like a one way hash of physical properties related to time/position and the rasterized data, in a way that cannot be faked.. or maybe a move away from rasterized data. Idk. Just brainstorming. I’m confident there will be an innovation in this space since there is clearly a very ur…

Or a DRM chip implanted in every human. “Warning: the person in picture doesn’t have Widevine chip installed”.

Indeed, something like that would be the only way to implement this, and I hope that everyone will agree that we should not go there. To a certain extent, the ability to lie is foundational to human civilization.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#77

Post by bambax »

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…

Yes, I don't quite understand the fear / excitement / fuss. We've had Photoshop for decades; and for instance, nobody believes models actually look like how they appear on the cover of magazines.

We know photos can be doctored. Now it's coming to video: what's the big deal?

A document, a quote, a rumor, any piece of information really, has to be evaluated in context; is it plausible that Michelle Obama would strip on camera? It's so far out of the realm of possibilities that there really isn't anything to debate.

Some people like to believe in conspiracies and unfortunately there's little we can do about it; the videos of 9/11 were real but conspiracists will insist they were fake and there's no convincing them otherwise...

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#79

Post by PeterisP »

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…

In current use, a physical signature doesn't really verify identity or authentication (i.e. that it was you who signed the document) but rather intent and consent - i.e., assuming that it's your freely given signature, this "ritual" marks that you intended to approve that document as opposed to words and gestures indicating that yes, maybe this is the right decision for some future time but might still want to think about it.

Re: Here Come the Fake Videos, Too

#80

Post by gpvos »

yorwba wrote: post #45
EGreg wrote: post #16

What about just having videos be watermarked and signed by their authors as well as the equipment used? Then you could trust their authenticity, no?

You could trust the authenticity of the fact that someone used the author's key to sign it at some point in time. You could not trust any claims the author makes about the circumstances under which the signed object was produced. They could have put their signature on a deepfake. They could have put their signature on the work of someone else. The author could have lost their signing key. It could have been created m…

I never thought I would say that you could use a blockchain to solve something, but here I go: you can solve the timing problem with a blockchain.

Alternatively, you can go old school and publish a fingerprint in the New York Times or something.

The other problems remain, of course.

Post reply on HN