81–90 of 182 posts
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.
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…
Deepfakes are readily understandable as a problem for politicians. Politicians are experts in public messaging; this technology has the ability to alter previously-immutable messages.
We need ways to sign or put signatures in videos that proves their authenticity. Not sure how such a thing would work though... I guess, in the world of blockchain, we could guarantee it’s origin at least.
I think that for any instinctive reaction like that you should ask - will authoritarian governments want this effect. If the answer is yes you should think this trough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Another recent example where regulations were (relatively) quick to address some new tech/gadget: drones. It was recognized by law makers that drones could be used for nefarious purposes and needed some form of regulation. I'm not saying that drone registration thwarts illegal use, but at least something was done by regulators.
That's an example of the politician's fallacy. Doing something can be much worse than doing nothing. Did drone registration actually improve anything?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ok, I've signed my cellphone footage of a crime being committed. Now what? How does that prove my footage was taken where I said, when I said?
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.
Make-A-Wish Foundation can really benefit from this technology by sending these "heartfelt" deepfake videos of famous celebrities and idols to dying kids, hoping to cheer them up. Is it an ethical thing to do? You be the judge!
It reminds me of the market for answering machine messages, but here you will have a large catalog of celebrities and you can create a personalized video message of them talking about you or someone you know.
A con artist could also buy that to pretend they know a certain person.
So the website would work like this: you pick a celebrity, you pick a theme/context/environment, like Skype call, handheld phone video, at home webcam, etc. and then you pick the message.
You can have actors with similar build as the target celeb acting specific scenes, to make the scenes more unique but still reusable. Payment options differs based on the exclusivity of the acted scene.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Another recent example where regulations were (relatively) quick to address some new tech/gadget: drones. It was recognized by law makers that drones could be used for nefarious purposes and needed some form of regulation. I'm not saying that drone registration thwarts illegal use, but at least something was done by regulators.
Either way these regulations don't help much when people just don't care, as can be seen with all the drones flying too close to airports.
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…
People have been faking videos for as long as video has existed. Deepfakes is just a scary new word for what people would call "CGI" or "VFX".
"Ryzen 3950x" is just a scary new word for "z80" or "6502".
Deepfakes don't provide any fundamentally new capability, but they do reduce the cost and time required to create a convincing fake video by multiple orders of magnitude. That completely changes the threat model, from "our propaganda rival occasionally releases a fake video that we have to debunk" to "our propaganda rival is producing thousands of fake videos every day and we can't even keep track of them".