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

Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 182 posts

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#11

Post by jdminhbg »

jedberg wrote: post #8
TimMurnaghan wrote: post #2

It still looks wrong. There's still some of the floating/stuck-on head feeling about it. Or is that just because we already know it's fake from the headline? (... and the way that the flag moves is totally wrong .../s).

You’d have to be paying real close attention to notice that, which you are primed to do because you’ve been told it’s a deep fake. You’re probably also more of an expert than most. But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

> But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

The technology to fool someone who has the TV on in the background has existed forever. You could do it with a stunt double. The problem is fooling everyone such that "this video is faked" doesn't become a bigger story than the fake video in the first place.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#12

Post by minikites »

jedberg wrote: post #8
TimMurnaghan wrote: post #2

It still looks wrong. There's still some of the floating/stuck-on head feeling about it. Or is that just because we already know it's fake from the headline? (... and the way that the flag moves is totally wrong .../s).

You’d have to be paying real close attention to notice that, which you are primed to do because you’ve been told it’s a deep fake. You’re probably also more of an expert than most. But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

>But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

I'm not convinced deepfakes will be that big of a problem because people already believe things that aren't real (and don't believe things that are real) without the help of technology.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#13

Post by ignoramous »

minikites wrote: post #12
jedberg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d have to be paying real close attention to notice that, which you are primed to do because you’ve been told it’s a deep fake. You’re probably also more of an expert than most. But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

>But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? I'm not convinced deepfakes will be that big of a problem because people already believe things that aren't real (and don't believe things that are real) without the help of technology.

> people already believe things that aren't real

That's the problem: These people can now parade proof when there isn't any, perhaps even rally to garner majority and dilute out actual facts.

> (and don't believe things that are real)

For instance, refusing to acknowledge deep-fakes despite being labeled as such...?

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#15

Post by bem94 »

I find this as interesting as I do worrying. Given our tenuous grasp of shared facts and basis for (political) relality these days, making videos like this just seems irresponsible.

We don't need any more fuel for the fire: "They faked this Nixon Video, so they could have faked too!"

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#16

Post by scj »

jdminhbg wrote: post #11
jedberg wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d have to be paying real close attention to notice that, which you are primed to do because you’ve been told it’s a deep fake. You’re probably also more of an expert than most. But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

> But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? The technology to fool someone who has the TV on in the background has existed forever. You could do it with a stunt double. The problem is fooling everyone such that "this video is faked" doesn't become a bigger story than the fake video in the first place.

Some people would demand fake videos supporting their point of view be taken seriously.

Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#17

Post by minikites »

ignoramous wrote: post #13
minikites wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? I'm not convinced deepfakes will be that big of a problem because people already believe things that aren't real (and don't believe things that are real) without the help of technology.

> people already believe things that aren't real That's the problem : These people can now parade proof when there isn't any, perhaps even rally to garner majority and dilute out actual facts. > (and don't believe things that are real) For instance, refusing to acknowledge deep-fakes despite being labeled as such...?

The point I was going for is that "proof" already doesn't work on lots of people, that's the real issue. Information literacy is an important skill that much of the populace lacks.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#18

Post by Loughla »

jstanley wrote: post #9
TimMurnaghan wrote: post #2

It still looks wrong. There's still some of the floating/stuck-on head feeling about it. Or is that just because we already know it's fake from the headline? (... and the way that the flag moves is totally wrong .../s).

I don't agree. If I didn't know that was a deepfake, there is no way I would guess that it is. It's more than good enough to convince me.

I'm with you. If this article was titled, "unbroadcasted footage of Nixon speech found in archive" I would've bought that headline 100%.

This is too good.

This is going to cause problems. Many, many problems.

We already have issues with what is real and what isn't, when you can still trust video for the most part. I am not excited to see what this does to society.

It's one of those - just because we can, does that mean we should - sort of scenarios.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#19

Post by ISL »

bem94 wrote: post #15

I find this as interesting as I do worrying. Given our tenuous grasp of shared facts and basis for (political) relality these days, making videos like this just seems irresponsible. We don't need any more fuel for the fire: "They faked this Nixon Video, so they could have faked too!"

Well, in this case, they would be correct.

Finding a reliable way to exchange trusted information is a central problem of our time.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#20

Post by lefstathiou »

Part of me feels that the widespread proliferation of deep fakes can potentially be positive. Seeing will no longer be believing and society will be forced to look at things with a more critical and skeptical eye or with a higher level of diligence. Value should also shift back to more legitimate sources. The transition will certainly suck though.
Post reply on HN