Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video • Hacker News Board

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#51

Post by uptown » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:48 PM UTC

gameswithgo wrote: post #48

uptown wrote: post #41

There's a relevant and insightful thread on Twitter posted by David Roberts here: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/988144274720964608 His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust. That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to, so in orde…

>That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure to In the case of climate change it is actually possible to self-inform yourself about some of the key aspects of climate change. Raw data is freely available (noaa and others), and some simple scripts can answer questions like "are the claimed warming trends real or artifacts of bias due to adjustments or other factors". This…

> "Raw data is freely available (noaa and others)"

But still - this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others. His point isn't really even about climate change. It's about debating the merits of any position, and what sources of information you trust to reinforce your position.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#52

Post by chiefalchemist » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

uptown wrote: post #41

There's a relevant and insightful thread on Twitter posted by David Roberts here: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/988144274720964608 His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust. That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to, so in orde…

> "His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust..."

Spot on. What the more purely science-mind can't seem to grasp is facts are only as good as the receivers' trust of the source. The irony is, there's plenty of science to support this. Yet, ironically, science too ignores itself.

If Science were a brand it would be in need of a makeover. But instead of owning it's many shortcomings and past transgressions (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc.) Science blames the customer/consumer.

That too, as we all know is a big mistake.

Sure, I side with Science. But I also know it could use an extensive education in dog fooding if it wants to regain its traction (read: credibility and trust) in the market.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#53

Post by VikingCoder » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:50 PM UTC

dosycorp wrote: post #6

But not fake narratives, fake writing or fake news. Convenient that new media celebrities and individuals have greatest audience creation power through video, whereas traditional media still holds sway in print / news. So clearly, understand the origins of the narrative that "fake video" is more dangerous: creator videos are stealing mindshare from traditional media. So of course trad media wants to believe it's dang…

I perceive your comment as nothing more than an ad hominem attack, so I struggle to understand why others have apparently voted it up.

The main reasons I trust any sources of information is that I trust that they hold themselves to a standard of journalism - such as verifying their sources. Doing original primary research into subjects.

When a video shows up in my Facebook news feed, I'm now more suspicious of it than ever before. Especially if it's from some source that I do not believe holds themselves to any journalistic standard.

I'm not pretending authority is an easy problem - it's not. I trust my pediatrician to be my proxy into understanding the world of pediatric medicine, I trust her as an authority. My family trusts me to be a proxy into understanding the world of technology, they trust me as an authority. And I have learned over time that some journalistic sources are good at reporting - they have a good track record, given the perspective of time.

And it's not even "old" versus "new." I quickly trusted the perspective of fivethirtyeight.com. Even in the crucible of debate, I find snopes vastly more right than they are wrong.

Video evidence used to be entirely damning. We should all ask harder questions now, rather than just taking some random video on faith.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#54

Post by jpatrickpark » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #46

threatofrain wrote: post #11

People don't underestimate it, they just don't know what to do about it. That's arguably more of a technological problem than a policy problem, the technical and philosophical problem of how to detect fakes.

Well I'll tell them what to do: Throw billions of dollars at data science prizes to create open sourced ways of detecting deep fakes. Have western intelligence agencies keep some methods private too, so we can detect it when someone has a way of getting through the open sourced scanners. Figure out how then did it, then open source a third way of detecting what they did while keeping the private scanners private. Thi…

Billions of dollars might not be enough... I don't really see ways of detecting sufficiently realistic fake videos. The best we could do might be to find the original unaltered video, given that we have access to such video (which is unlikely if the fake video is meant to be an attack). Even then, it's not sufficient evidence to say the new one is fake (one can argue that the original is fake).

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#55

Post by jdietrich » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:51 PM UTC

carapace wrote: post #49

uptown wrote: post #41

There's a relevant and insightful thread on Twitter posted by David Roberts here: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/988144274720964608 His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust. That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to, so in orde…

> matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to But in the case of climate change anyone over thirty-five or so knows damn well the weather has gone funny. People are scared, way deep down where it's hard to think about, because they know on a cellular billion-year-old level that you cannot escape the weather. Once you grasp that, climate denialism is an obvious coping mecha…

>But in the case of climate change anyone over thirty-five or so knows damn well the weather has gone funny.

A very similar logic leads people to conclude "it was cold last week, so global warming is nonsense". Being able to understand the scientific case for climate change requires a level of scientific literacy and critical thinking that most people could readily develop, but isn't taught in schools.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#56

Post by SilasX » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

Don't we get some version of this effect with fictional movies and TV shows? Your brain parses it as real, so you accept it at some deep level, even when you know it's fake.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#57

Post by amirmc » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:54 PM UTC

chiefalchemist wrote: post #52

uptown wrote: post #41

There's a relevant and insightful thread on Twitter posted by David Roberts here: https://twitter.com/drvox/status/988144274720964608 His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust. That matters of complexity are too distant from any one individual to have direct exposure-to, so in orde…

> "His thread references the "debate" over climate change, and his point is that the debate most people participate in isn't truly a debate over facts, but rather a debate over trust..." Spot on. What the more purely science-mind can't seem to grasp is facts are only as good as the receivers' trust of the source. The irony is, there's plenty of science to support this. Yet, ironically, science too ignores itself. If…

> (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc.) Science blames the customer/consumer.

It feels like there's a conflation of science and science reporting in here somewhere. Most of the actual research output makes measured claims but the journalism around it ends up being sensationalised (yes, some researchers also participate in that but not as a rule).

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#58

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:54 PM UTC

hanbura wrote: post #50

threatofrain wrote: post #11

People don't underestimate it, they just don't know what to do about it. That's arguably more of a technological problem than a policy problem, the technical and philosophical problem of how to detect fakes.

Technological solutions will help, but software to spot fake videos will lead to an arms race between video creation and video classification. The more promising angle is imho the society angle. Most people view their memory as the best source of truth, when in reality it's well established in psychology that our memory is incredibly unreliable. Previously this was mostly a problem for the justice system, now we risk…

[deleted]

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#59

Post by kneel » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:57 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #45

It seems like fake video can be handled the same way we handle fake text. We're just not used to doing that yet. Anyone can write an article and sign it "Barack Obama," and post it online somewhere. Not many folks will fall for it. Most people understand how easy it is just write someone else's name down, so they look for provenance to help decide what is real. An article by "Barack Obama" on the Wall Street Journal…

>It seems like fake video can be handled the same way we handle fake text. We're just not used to doing that yet.

What happens when someone synthesizes fake anchors in fake news segments and posts them on fb/twitter?

You're severely underestimating how news propagates.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#60

Post by snowwrestler » Mon, Apr 23, 2018, 4:59 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #47

snowwrestler wrote: post #45

It seems like fake video can be handled the same way we handle fake text. We're just not used to doing that yet. Anyone can write an article and sign it "Barack Obama," and post it online somewhere. Not many folks will fall for it. Most people understand how easy it is just write someone else's name down, so they look for provenance to help decide what is real. An article by "Barack Obama" on the Wall Street Journal…

> Anyone can write an article and sign it "Barack Obama," and post it online somewhere. Not many folks will fall for it. That's just stunningly naive. Imagine if Pizzagate or some other such nonsense was accompanied by a video of Podesta mumbling something about sex slaves. Fake News is a a real thing even without video corroboration. > Naked video files, found at random places on the Internet, You honestly think Bre…

How many people believe Pizzagate is real? Shall we litigate the exact numerical definition of "not many?"--which is what I said, not "none."