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

Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 197 posts

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#131

Post by gaius »

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…

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 gave us CFCs then berated us for the hole in the ozone layer...

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#132

Post by gaius »

eric_h wrote: post #121
hanbura wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the technology to detect fake video in fact part of the process of generating it? I was under the impression that these deep fakes used an adversarial network, thus, the better the detection of fakes, the better quality of the generated fakes.

Yes, the technique you’re referring to is called GAN

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#133

Post by VikingCoder »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #128
VikingCoder wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heartily agree with your core point. > encouraging people to trust untrustworthy sources for information which doesn't necessarily square with the scientific evidence To offer up some compassion to those people, you have to remember that we're daily barraged with p=0.05 experiments getting breathless coverage in the media. "Scientists say peanut butter cures cancer." "Scientists say peanut butter causes cancer." Re…

Remember back when it was going to be a new Ice Age? Now it's "Global Warming?" No, I don't remember that, because that was never actually the case. If you "remember" it, it is a false impression and you should really deeply introspect why you hold it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-co...

I'm relating the perspective some people have on science. To them, it's chaotic. Answers change constantly. "Theory" is a derogatory term to them.

The conversation here is not how any given fact is right or wrong. The conversation here is that "scientific facts" seem to change at a dizzying pace to them, without being tethered to reality. "Global warming?!? It's SNOWING right now!"

Do cell phones cause cancer? Do vaccines cause autism? Was there cold fusion in that fish tank?

Also see:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-ar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge

https://gizmodo.com/why-scientific-americans-predictions-fro...

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predic...

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#134

Post by godelski »

mistermann wrote: post #118
godelski wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others I should mention that this is fairly easy to verify, at least with part of the data. For land temperatures one of the big sources they use is meteorological data gathered at airports (METAR). You know, the same data that pilots use to calculate take off and landing distances, altimeter settings, etc. So a concerned citizen could compare this these dat…

Ok, but what are we verifying, the pre-adjusted numbers, or the post-adjusted numbers? And is there a document a reasonably intelligent layman can refer to to get the complete story behind how various measurements have been adjusted? For fun, sometimes I try to find someone who can explain to me where the "97% of scientists support the man-made global warming theory" statistic came from, and I'm pretty sure I found t…

> Ok, but what are we verifying, the pre-adjusted numbers, or the post-adjusted numbers?

You would compare the raw data (pre). You should also look at the models people use to adjust and ask yourself "does this make sense?" I should mention that the raw data suggests significantly more warming than is actually happening (which is why I've never understood the raw data argumet). This is because most ways we measure are actually artificially warm. There's a good layman's discussion here [1]. I'll mention that article gives lots of links to follow and is one of the first things I give technical people that are interested in learning more about the basics. It will give you a world to google and terms to search.

> pretty sure I found the original source, but the problem is, it doesn't say 97% of scientists support it, or that 97% of papers support it.

This is true, but I think you also misunderstand what it means. IIRC it also included papers from arxiv and other preprint services, which aren't peer reviewed. There are other studies that have done surveys on opinion breakdowns between different types of scientists. You still see an overwhelming trend (I believe >97%) among climate scientists that support it.

> And then I read things like: "The US right, for decades...

Leave politics out of science. Well at least as much as you can. Stop reading these things, they aren't relevant or useful. Different parts of academia have different problems, and they don't apply to all parts.

> So, partially because I'm genuinely skeptical...

GOOD. PLEASE BE SKEPTICAL. As a scientist I will NEVER discourage someone from being skeptical. But you also need to do more than just say "I'm skeptical", that is being a conspiracy theorist (in the bad way). A real skeptic looks into the claims made. That's what being skeptical is. So I encourage you to look at the data. I encourage you to actually talk to scientists that directly work on this research (as opposed to me). Most scientists are extremely happy to talk about their work, unless you're being mean to them.

If you are really skeptical please at minimum read [1]. Better, go through the other links as well.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...

Bonus: Link to different datasets https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12-__RqTqQxuxHNOln3H5...

Nice graph on common claims (with link to data): https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#135

Post by icebraining »

royjacobs wrote: post #16
tgamba wrote: 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.

Except everyone has been conditioned over the latest ~100 years to assume that everything they see in a video is real. That is: unless explicitly contextualised as fake, like when watching a movie. Your premise that everyone should just "apply some critical thinking" directly contradicts the events of the last couple of years, not just in the field of video but within any form of media.

Eh, I'm not sure. People have been skeptical of video forever, as long as they feel they have a reason to be. Hell, even the Moon landing videos are doubted by a non-insignificant number of people.

I think the "trust in video" is more a reflection of trust in the establishment, since those were the people who could really broadcast it. People who didn't have that trust in the establishment (e.g. anti-capitalists in the West) already doubted videos as well.

For example, where I'm from there's a significant number of people who are skeptical of the recent videos of the chemical attack in Syria.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#136

Post by oldcynic »

gaius wrote: post #131
chiefalchemist wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

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 gave us CFCs then berated us for the hole in the ozone layer...

Wasn't that more like:

Science gave us CFCs then commerce and industry over-used them irresponsibly, and fought regulation. Science later appropriately berated us for the hole in the ozone layer...

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#137

Post by Maybestring »

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), and some simple scripts can answer questions like "are the claimed warming trends real or artifacts of bias due to adjustments or other factors".

That can only tell you whether the trend is present in the raw data or only occured after some processing of the data.

Don't confuse raw sensor data with reality and adjustments with artifacts.

I can use a tire gauge that reads high, but that doesn't make my flat tire an artifact of data adjustment.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#138

Post by throwaway5752 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #133
throwaway5752 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember back when it was going to be a new Ice Age? Now it's "Global Warming?" No, I don't remember that, because that was never actually the case. If you "remember" it, it is a false impression and you should really deeply introspect why you hold it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-co...

I'm relating the perspective some people have on science. To them, it's chaotic. Answers change constantly. "Theory" is a derogatory term to them. The conversation here is not how any given fact is right or wrong. The conversation here is that "scientific facts" seem to change at a dizzying pace to them, without being tethered to reality. "Global warming?!? It's SNOWING right now!" Do cell phones cause cancer? Do vac…

Okay, sorry I didn't pick up on that. My fault for not paying better attention.

I agree, but I guess I'm both pushing a bit back on people to have some common sense when ascribing credibility to a source and also push some blame on deliberate bad actors (muddling what is true, and also reducing peoples' trust in the system overall).

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#139

Post by xtracerx »

lightbyte wrote: post #113
opportune wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We must never forget that half of voters are even dumber than the average voter

That's not how averages work. If 9 people have an IQ of 100 and 1 has an IQ of 10, the average is 91. 9/10 people are still above that.

It does if IQ is a bell curve by definition, and it is.

Re: Underestimating the mind-warping potential of fake video

#140

Post by mkstowegnv »

jdietrich wrote: post #22
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…

Buzzfeed and Vox are pushing this message, but they are by no means "traditional media". They're online-only publishers who are heavily oriented towards short-form video and social media sharing. It's a much more straightforward issue of media literacy. The Facebook feeds of most people are littered with "news" from anonymous sources with unknown funders and unknown agendas. This created a major vulnerability in the…

I welcome other suggestions but for now I rely on Media Bias Fact Check [1] to learn about mysterious news sources (although they don't have entries for the two you mentioned). I agree with most of their assessments for the sources I know. They are criticized by both right and left leaning websites. Although I am sure a larger group could come up with something better, I like their methodology [2] and the answers in their faq [3]. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com [2] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ [3] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/frequently-asked-questions/
Post reply on HN