21–30 of 70 posts
It's a first step, and my thinking has also evolved since—expect more updates in this space soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make it feasible you don't need much, just journalists signing videos and uploading them somewhere besides publishing anywhere unsigned. This will make every unsigned video easily verifiable, just not with crypto.
That's fine for journalists, but does nothing to prevent fakes captured by the populace. A good deal of our journalism now is by on scene witnesses. What can we do about fakes posted on social media purported to be the real capture of some scandal or event?
I have to agree that this will be inevitable. Fake videos _will_ be created to spread misinformation. I bring you no solutions. Our best programmatic tool for these kinds of video analysis is currently the exact same technology that enables it in the first place. Furthermore, any neural network that can detect fake videos will only be used adversarially to train a better deep fake creator! The only solution I see is…
To make it feasible you don't need much, just journalists signing videos and uploading them somewhere besides publishing anywhere unsigned. This will make every unsigned video easily verifiable, just not with crypto.
And in order to implement that, you'll be talking to people who'd sign a video by getting a pen, some paper, and a flatbed scanner.
I'm not entirely joking. My point is that this proves that there comes a point in every field where technical illiteracy goes from being annoying for you (you can't use the best tools anymore, and your workflow is now sub-par) to annoying for others (you can't collaborate effectively) to completely unworkable, as when your work product is now worthless because you can't demonstrate it isn't a cheap forgery. And some people are just not technical, through stubbornness or otherwise. This transition will hurt.
Maybe tools will follow the demand. I'm not entirely sanguine.
It could also raise awareness of the issue, so that if people see a video that seems "too good to be true" on a different platform, they would know that it might not be real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To make it feasible you don't need much, just journalists signing videos and uploading them somewhere besides publishing anywhere unsigned. This will make every unsigned video easily verifiable, just not with crypto.
In the last years there have been quite a few cases of journalists resigning from very prestigious publications (NYT, ...) because they were caught fabricating news.
I have to agree that this will be inevitable. Fake videos _will_ be created to spread misinformation. I bring you no solutions. Our best programmatic tool for these kinds of video analysis is currently the exact same technology that enables it in the first place. Furthermore, any neural network that can detect fake videos will only be used adversarially to train a better deep fake creator! The only solution I see is…
Can we develop something to put in videos that are real? Maybe something built into the software or maybe even some icon you have to hold up behind someone like the president to at least make deepfakes difficult/impossible? Just spit-balling as I also see no point in video analysis
Or perhaps active tattoos that display private key signed messages that describe what they’re saying and doing.
I'd be more concerned with US officials using this technology to indict innocent people who disagree with them. Being able to conjure up a confession for anything by anyone is extremely powerful, given that the alternatives to accomplish the same thing today are basically apprehension and torture/threats.
>Being able to conjure up a confession for anything by anyone is extremely powerful Being able to dismiss credible video evidence as 'deepfake' is equally powerful. In any case, it would be extremely risky to hang a case on a single confession video that the accused claims is fake, given the current pattern of prosecution the DOJ would never bring that case; it would be embarrassing in the public eye and probably ove…
I have to agree that this will be inevitable. Fake videos _will_ be created to spread misinformation. I bring you no solutions. Our best programmatic tool for these kinds of video analysis is currently the exact same technology that enables it in the first place. Furthermore, any neural network that can detect fake videos will only be used adversarially to train a better deep fake creator! The only solution I see is…
However I'd hope that we move to some agreed standard of signing of videos, so their source can be confirmed by the player. It doesn't matter if that source is the bbc, washington post, alex jones, national enquirer, the onion, or "Bob Joe Billy-Bob the Third", it means you know where the video came from, and can trust (or not) it based on that information.
A video with a bbc banner showing the president saying something could easily be faked. One that is signed by the BBC will only be fake if the BBC itself is publishing it as a fake, and that comes with a reputational impact.
Sites that reversion that video (recompress it etc) can simply sign it by themselves. They could claim that they took an original BBC item to do it, and then it's how much you trust that site.
People see someone, be it Donald Trump, or John Simpson, or Walter Mondale, and instinctively know that person said what they can see. That's changing, and it's going to be a long time before our brains change. Even now, you read some rubbish that you consciously know is rubbish, but part of it lodges in your subconcious and affects your thinking down the line. At least if you know who created the video, it gives you a fighting chance.
With this system anyone can still publish, even anonymously, but reputations are hard to gain and easy to lose. I don't like the daily mail, but I know if they publish a video of Obama saying "Killmonger was right, and President Trump is a total and complete dipshit", I'll probably believe he did. If he didn't, that will come out, and the daily mail is off the list of sources I trust to not make crap up (rather than just bend things), and it makes it far easier for reasonable people to dismiss it.
This moves the onus on news sources to be more discerning in their facts, but if they get it wrong then they lose their readers. By signing the news, they are backing it with their reputation. If Alex Jones has signed it, then he's putting his reputation on the line (if he has any reputation for saying something).
Anyone know where deepfakes moved to? It was great seeing what was going on in /r/deepfakes but due to the "offensive nature" of some of the videos that subreddit was killed. Anyone know the best place to watch and observe the latest happenings in the scene?
Will FB, Twitter, YouTube, and other social networks create tools to flag deepfakes? It wouldn't solve the problem, but at least it could blunt the spread. It could also raise awareness of the issue, so that if people see a video that seems "too good to be true" on a different platform, they would know that it might not be real.