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

61–70 of 182 posts

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

#61

Post by javanix »

canada_dry wrote: post #58

Deep fakes are yet another prime example of how the writing is on the wall (i.e. it's clear that this technology can/will be used for nefarious purposes - esp. by our enemies) and yet mitigations - through regulation and enhanced standards - won't be pursued until long after the horses have left the barn. I don't know how/what form this should take, but an older analogy might be how colour photocopier manufacturers i…

What regulations / standards would actually stop these things from getting out though?

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

#62

Post by lowken10 »

canada_dry wrote: post #58

Deep fakes are yet another prime example of how the writing is on the wall (i.e. it's clear that this technology can/will be used for nefarious purposes - esp. by our enemies) and yet mitigations - through regulation and enhanced standards - won't be pursued until long after the horses have left the barn. I don't know how/what form this should take, but an older analogy might be how colour photocopier manufacturers i…

We’ve had the ability to doctor photos for 20+ years now and it has not been an issue.

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

#63

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

ouid wrote: post #52
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #22

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…

Of all the places where you could find "epstein news" you choose to link the New York Post.

I would honestly love to link to a trusted MSM report, but these outlets have been burying Epstein stories[1]. It's awful.

1. https://www.newsweek.com/abc-jeffrey-epstein-story-amy-robac...

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

#64

Post by umvi »

cannonedhamster wrote: post #60
jonas21 wrote: post #50

How long before all the moon landing hoax people start pointing at this and saying, "see, I told you so."?

There is literally a mirror in the moon you can get a reflection from it you know where to look. Mom landing hoaxers don't need evidence to believe what they believe.

I mean, it's a little more difficult than that. You need an expensive high powered laser only available at universities and precision calibration and timing equipment to fire and detect the return pulse.

It's not like you can just pull out a hobby telescope and be like "oh look, a tiny mirror next to an american flag"

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

#65

Post by umvi »

canada_dry wrote: post #58

Deep fakes are yet another prime example of how the writing is on the wall (i.e. it's clear that this technology can/will be used for nefarious purposes - esp. by our enemies) and yet mitigations - through regulation and enhanced standards - won't be pursued until long after the horses have left the barn. I don't know how/what form this should take, but an older analogy might be how colour photocopier manufacturers i…

So you think it would be better if politicians have a knee jerk emotional reaction like with 3d printed guns and start shutting down research and making it a felony to publish deep fake videos?

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

#66

Post by omarchowdhury »

V-2 wrote: post #45
mac01021 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason it should be a worse problem for video than it's been for print over the last 20 years?

"I saw it with my own eyes" is inherently more convincing than "someone told me [in writing] how it is". It will be naturally harder for humans to reject false recordings as deceitful.

And one wonders how muddied the waters will become, actual videos may be discarded on accusation of being deepfakes!

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

#67

Post by eyegor »

javanix wrote: post #61
canada_dry wrote: post #58

Deep fakes are yet another prime example of how the writing is on the wall (i.e. it's clear that this technology can/will be used for nefarious purposes - esp. by our enemies) and yet mitigations - through regulation and enhanced standards - won't be pursued until long after the horses have left the barn. I don't know how/what form this should take, but an older analogy might be how colour photocopier manufacturers i…

What regulations / standards would actually stop these things from getting out though?

The only answer here is drm esque file signing. Any attempts at detecting fakes will only work while the tech is young. Ofc this requires a web of trust and verification techniques to be applied, since videos are often re encoded.

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

#68

Post by gojomo »

canada_dry wrote: post #58

Deep fakes are yet another prime example of how the writing is on the wall (i.e. it's clear that this technology can/will be used for nefarious purposes - esp. by our enemies) and yet mitigations - through regulation and enhanced standards - won't be pursued until long after the horses have left the barn. I don't know how/what form this should take, but an older analogy might be how colour photocopier manufacturers i…

The sorts of bad actors or 'enemies' who'd deploy deep fakes for advantage aren't typically discouraged by 'regulations'.

On the other hand, there is a reasonable amount of active research on both detecting current faking-techniques, and methods of adding cryptographic attestation from point-of-recording.

I don't believe "detection" can win in the end, as widespread detection-technology can generally be used to tune better fabrications.

So ultimately we'll have to rely on: "do we trust the specific chain-of-people-and-sensors-and-relays that brought this evidence to our purview?" And various kinds of constantly-applied cryptographic signing & timestamping can help with that, though interpreting the challenging cases will require a lot of abstract expertise. (So again, for most people, it may reduce to: "who do you choose to trust?")

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

#69

Post by [deleted] »

canada_dry wrote: post #58

Deep fakes are yet another prime example of how the writing is on the wall (i.e. it's clear that this technology can/will be used for nefarious purposes - esp. by our enemies) and yet mitigations - through regulation and enhanced standards - won't be pursued until long after the horses have left the barn. I don't know how/what form this should take, but an older analogy might be how colour photocopier manufacturers i…

[deleted]

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

#70

Post by make3 »

eyegor wrote: post #67
javanix wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What regulations / standards would actually stop these things from getting out though?

The only answer here is drm esque file signing. Any attempts at detecting fakes will only work while the tech is young. Ofc this requires a web of trust and verification techniques to be applied, since videos are often re encoded.

you mean for literally every piece of video taken everywhere..
Post reply on HN