Live data from Hacker News

Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

vox.com

31–40 of 197 posts

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#31
post #15

Except all video is fake, that is, all videos are artifacts, artificial things. "We’re not so far from the collapse of reality" -- am I the only one who finds this inane? No video is real. Critical thinking as applied to the written word applies equally to the image. It's not rocket science.

You are not the only one who finds it insane.

A video is recorded, cut, and was subject to selection bias to begin with when somebody hit record; not to mention that the subset of things that are easier to record get moved to the front of the line.

Even if you accept the counter-argument that 'unaltered footage' is 'more real' - the entire act of passing a video around, by media, by people, by whomever - is, to me, far removed from the reality of being an eye-witness.

A 'click-bait' headline can be technically true, but there's a reason people take issue with them.

Maybe "fake" is too evocative of digital or selective editing - I feel you're describing a more subtle form of "fakeness" - the subtle loss of reality as something is encapsulated in text, video, etc. and relayed to someone who didn't witness the original.

That, or I'm projecting how I feel about the subject.

I'll add that, for me sometimes, and for a lot of people I know, it's easy to fall into the trap of getting emotionally worked up about some piece of evidence gleaned from the 'net, taking it in as real information, instead of taking it dispassionately as a simulacrum.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#32

We've been able to make convincing fake video since the 60s (see Kubric). Even impersonators with good makeup can get pretty close. I don't see how new tech changes anything.

It makes it easier, cheaper, faster to create fake content. And then it's easier to get viewers and to spread virally.

It's like you're asking why a modern CPU is any different than a PDP-11, since they're both Turing machines.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#33
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or maybe people should just trust themselves, and their own experience. And get more of that, instead of more exposure to media. This is fine for certain contexts, but what about cases that can be important for individual people but outside their personal experience? Did Trump sign an Obamacare repeal (an example from the article)? That kind of thing matters for being an informed voter, but few people were physical…

"Informed voter" Ha! An oxymoron that Socrates would have chided you for. :)

Y'en a pas un sur cent et pourtant ils existent.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#34
post #26

So are they advocating for tougher libel laws? The photo and video used as examples are pretty obviously fake, but even if it was indistinguishable, what then? Fake photoshopped images are so common now that ppl should assume any highly controversial/compromising photo that isn't corroborated by AP or Reuters is probably fake. Doesn't stop people from believing in fake photos or fake stories, but that's how it's alwa…

>The press would absolutely hate that, and rightfully so. Not only the press. Whoever is making the decision what's real is the ultimate censor and can decide which reality the voting public sees. Of course convincing, largely circulated fakes have a similar effect. But in a largely unregulated scenario it will at least be possible to notice that conflicting versions exist

Would also need to distinguish between fake and parody too. For organizations like The Onion, will they create 'deep-fake' parody videos. Will they be allowed to?

Since they can create parody news and images, I'm inclined to believe yes.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#35

We've been able to make convincing fake video since the 60s (see Kubric). Even impersonators with good makeup can get pretty close. I don't see how new tech changes anything.

As cost goes down it becomes more accessible. Take a fake video of the president. People are likely to be willing to buy the explanation someone went through the trouble of hiring an actor and makeup specialist to make such a fake video. But a fake video of a school board member? Does anyone really have the resources to spend all the money needed to hire a look alike and make a video? Would people be more willing to think like that and assume the video is true? I think so.

Apps that can create realistic fake videos will get better and cheaper, meaning that increasing numbers of people will be able to create more convincing fake videos. At least for a while the technology will outpace the social awareness, and this gap is where we will see problems. Imagine a new form of cyber bullying that relied of using a fake app.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#36

We've been able to make convincing fake video since the 60s (see Kubric). Even impersonators with good makeup can get pretty close. I don't see how new tech changes anything.

It lowers the cost and effort, on an incredibly effective form of lying.

It is effective because it engages a set of senses we have a harder time questioning ... and for good reason ... it’s (currently) easy to spot these unless you are really distracted. That’s because our brains blind us to how it constructs what we see ... we don’t get to continuously deconstruct our consciousness of red or blue, or a three dimensional reality. Such an adaptation would have been counterproductive. These videos cross back and forth in the ‘uncanny valley’ right now. I could easily tell it’s a fake, though i can’t explain why. Our ability to spot these with effort won’t be true forever.

I do fully agree that people have overcome public lying in many forms. It does take a while for society as a whole to adjust.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#37

We've been able to make convincing fake video since the 60s (see Kubric). Even impersonators with good makeup can get pretty close. I don't see how new tech changes anything.

>>convincing fake video since the 60s (see Kubric)

I assume you mean stanley kubrick. What are you referring to?

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#38
post #27
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For news we can assume that it's signed by the journalists and news agencies who created the content. Or who researched the origin and are willing to put their credibility on the line. Edit: To clarify, this doesn't prove if something is real or fake. It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust.

So no video editing then?

Maybe with a chain like with SSL certificates & authorities? Or maybe there could be a reference database with all the versions signed by a given authority so that you could verify it's an approved version? Why not go even further and show the same kind of alerts / block content if the source / signature can't be trusted?

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#39
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signing by who?

For news we can assume that it's signed by the journalists and news agencies who created the content. Or who researched the origin and are willing to put their credibility on the line. Edit: To clarify, this doesn't prove if something is real or fake. It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust.

>It just makes attribution of the origin easier and creates a traceable chain of trust.

This kills anonymous sources, maybe literally under hostile regimes.

If it's signed by the equipment that originally recorded it (you're smuggling evidence of crimes out), you may not be able to verify it anyway.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#40

So are they advocating for tougher libel laws? The photo and video used as examples are pretty obviously fake, but even if it was indistinguishable, what then? Fake photoshopped images are so common now that ppl should assume any highly controversial/compromising photo that isn't corroborated by AP or Reuters is probably fake. Doesn't stop people from believing in fake photos or fake stories, but that's how it's alwa…

It's not a legal problem... even the courts are going to have to grapple with the deeper underlying issue of how do we detect fake evidence. Courts rely on videos, pictures, and audio too.
Post reply on HN