41–50 of 182 posts
- - - -
Sooner or later, nanotech will mature and all of this will escape the digital realm (largely photons and electrons) into "real" life (IRL) (protons and neutrons) and we'll have to deal with that.
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.
We should be less worried about overt propaganda like DeepFakes and more worried about the assumptions baked into the media of all imperialist nations, the misdirection, and the selection of "what" to report on. States have been lying to us since time immemorial, and they don't need fancy video evidence to do it. But this is a cool demo, and since the Genie is out of the bottle, this can be a great tool. You could us…
True, but now they'll be able to drive any narrative with as much A/V 'evidence' as they want. Lies by omission or one sided reporting are dangerous in their own right, but challenging that is different from challenging fake evidence.
It's hard to say "It wasn't me" if you're on tape/film. You'd have to have experts argue over validity but the public doesn't have the attention span or trust to follow that. Deepfakes have the potential to be extremely damning/damaging to public image/reputation in a way that biased reporting never did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, in this case, they would be correct. Finding a reliable way to exchange trusted information is a central problem of our time.
Is there any reason it should be a worse problem for video than it's been for print over the last 20 years?
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.
But now people will also have more reason to disbelieve things that are true. Imagine if Trump could claim that the "Grab em by the $#@%" tape was a fake, or if Biden could do the same about the tape of him bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
The audio is so realistic. I could have been fooled easily.
I am more curious how they did the audio than the video. From experience, it's not nearly as easy to clone someone's voice as you might think. It might be that they just found a good voice actor. That's what most deepfake videos do now. But maybe someday it will be possible to press a button and hear a beautiful result.
I find it amusing that Congress has suddenly become so interested in the dangers of deep fakes. When they started going on and on about the dangers I thought “why is this dude so worried?”. Then of course the Epstein stuff becomes news[1] months later and the cynical part of me can’t help but think they’re looking for a defense if they ever partied at his island or ranch. 1. https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/jeffrey-epst…
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.