71–80 of 128 posts
Generally the best way I've found to detect deep fake video is to listen to the audio. When we have deepfake video _and_ deepfake audio we'll be in trouble. At least for moving images.
These authors worked/work at baidu.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3k7mgn/baidu-deep-voice-s...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. We will. Because the future us will be conditioned to do so by our cryptographically integrated devices. There'll be so much fake video out there that we'll get accustomed to seeing it on our devices with the big huge "fake" sign flashing on it. (Or, again, even worse, it will not have the "real" sign flashing on it that the video from validated publishers and cameras will have.) We can be conditioned to do this…
So you're arguing that at some point in the future, nobody will give even the slightest credence to amateur footage captured on camera phones, small business CCTV systems and a million other sorts of non-corporately-owned camera? Because I think that future is worse than the one that's full of fake video.
I think that's the end goal of all the "deep fake" hysteria we're being primed with. In the future if some damning video of a politician or other elite member of society pops up the defense will simply be "well you can't rule out that it's a fake, look, it's not signed and it's not in our database of trusted videos!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is to have an immutable source to compare against. If you suspect a video is faked, you can find the verified original video that was used to make the fake and compare against it.
What if the fake video is the first one to be uploaded?
Articles like these make me eager for advances made in the 'authenticity' market. I recently learned of a company called Truepic[0] that specializes in photo and video verification. From the New Yorker article I read: "Truepic, a startup in San Diego, aims at producing a new kind of photograph—a verifiable digital original. Photographs taken with its smartphone app are uploaded to its servers, where they enter a kind…
I am so tempted to reply with a BS. Because this is a super hard problem, with hundreds of edge cases making it even harder, some tried to solve it in the past, with underwhelming results. Yes, this is utter BS, sorry.
Articles like these make me eager for advances made in the 'authenticity' market. I recently learned of a company called Truepic[0] that specializes in photo and video verification. From the New Yorker article I read: "Truepic, a startup in San Diego, aims at producing a new kind of photograph—a verifiable digital original. Photographs taken with its smartphone app are uploaded to its servers, where they enter a kind…
I am so tempted to reply with a BS. Because this is a super hard problem, with hundreds of edge cases making it even harder, some tried to solve it in the past, with underwhelming results. Yes, this is utter BS, sorry.
I am curious to know more about this space because it's all very new to me. What failed solutions were tried in the past? Which issues does Truepic fail to address? And is it even possible to address these failures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not thinking this through. The problem isn't that creators can make fake videos (which would be analogous to DRM). Let them. There is no harm in it. The problem is that users have no way of verifying true videos. This can be solved with cryptography, because both parties involved (creators and viewers) would want this to work. In other words, DRM is about forcing everyone to do a thing. Verification is about a…
There's a video of a politician taking a bribe. How do you verify it's real? You can't - because the camera of the guy that published it says it's not modified, but it could be just as well a camera recording a display with the fake playing.
I would imagine that in the future video encoders will start to automatically include a cryptographic signature every X frames, which then players will become aware of and show an indicator for "original / modified" content.
I'm thinking that we'd need an Originality Authority (like a CA), to act as the anchor. I assume anyone could just strip the cryptographic signature and then re-sign it with their own signature, and we'd need an authority to prevent that. Upload your content, request a key you can sign with, the OA checks against previously registered content in it's database for originality (I can only assume this would be as buggy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does Truepic work? What's stopping me from spoofing sensor data on my client?
Probably nothing. But it solves 99% of the problems it's meant to solve. Casual insurance fraud, for example.
Occasionally a security minded computer savy person might pull one over on the insurance company - but most clients aren't going to have the expertise or dedication to correctness. To contrast that - the pool of people who would try and produce a deep fake, especially in the political realm, have already decided to invest a good amount of investigation and effort and are likely rather technically minded.
So this would stop the script-kiddie equivalent actor in the deep fake realm, but I am more concerned about dedicated nefarious actors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s where they use their fancy computer vision software to determine if the source has been tampered with.
And if they can’t determine that?
This is leading society to a very dangerous place where the truth is becoming a matter of opinion.