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

Post by malvosenior » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

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.

Post by extrapickles » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #68

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…

Post by jdietrich » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

canada_dry wrote: post #74

umvi wrote: post #65

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.

Post by alpaca128 » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #72

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 photographic deep fakes for decades now. How does this fundamentally change anything more than Photoshop already did?

Post by jdietrich » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

eyegor wrote: post #87

saalweachter wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I was thinking more along the lines of hardware manufacturers implementing a secure enclave style of signing files as they're recorded. The sig could be tagged with location/date if available, but at least the video would be verifiable. The web of trust would have to exist for reprocessors and media outlets who like to edit footage.