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

111–120 of 182 posts

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

#111

Post by godelski »

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #106
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…

naive question, won't any deep faked video leave some pretty readily detectable artifacts in the underlying video file?

If they are visible to the model, then these artifacts could also be generated.

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

#113

Post by Reason077 »

jobigoud wrote: post #82
ISL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the bigger problem is it provides deniability and removes accountability. The "I never said that" kind.

Could blockchain give us a secure audit trail for digital video clips?

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

#114

Post by jfengel »

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…

I don't think detection would really help even if we had it. Even now, most fake-news stories are obviously fake. They have no subtlety; they don't fool anybody paying even the faintest shred of attention.

They'll be used on people who are already perfectly happy to believe fake printed quotes from obviously unreliable sources. When challenged, they'll refer to conventional partisan media citing those sources as proof. Ordinarily showing video would increase their certainty, but they're already absolutely certain. It'll just be a more entertaining way of delivering it to them.

Detection, no matter how definitive, can't deter that. They're already perfectly happy with their trusted sources.

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

#115

Post by Bartweiss »

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?

We've also had video since before convincing photo edits were available.

So people learned that we shouldn't trust a photo of Martians, or a sound clip of the President confessing to murder, but should hold out for video. When footage of Rob Ford doing crack cocaine shows up, we believe it's real. And when an investigative reporter wants a verifiable record of something, they resort to a high-quality video.

Even if video deepfakes aren't any more realistic than image or audio fakes have been, they're important because there's no fallback. With perfect-accuracy photo and audio fakes, we'd have to be more skeptical. But with perfect-accuracy photo, audio, and video fakes, we'd suddenly be back to the pre-photography era when there was essentially no way for an untrusted source to convince you that something had happened. Deepfakes aren't flawless, we're not at that point, but the specifics of video are less important than the impact of having some medium which can't be convincingly faked.

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

#116

Post by gsich »

Reason077 wrote: post #113
jobigoud wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bigger problem is it provides deniability and removes accountability. The "I never said that" kind.

Could blockchain give us a secure audit trail for digital video clips?

"simple" would suffice.

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

#117

Post by macintux »

tigershark wrote: post #76
umvi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely it will further reinforce echo chambers so that people will truly only see what they want to believe and nothing more. Anything they disagree with or is inconvenient to their worldview is "deep fake"

What’s the difference with today “fake news” outrage for absolutely real news?

The difference is that now people will have video proof that their belief is true, and will know any counter-evidence is fake.

Today some people can be persuaded by evidence to abandon a faulty belief. That number seems destined to dwindle in a world where evidence is increasingly malleable.

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

#118

Post by zaphod420 »

Reason077 wrote: post #113
jobigoud wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the bigger problem is it provides deniability and removes accountability. The "I never said that" kind.

Could blockchain give us a secure audit trail for digital video clips?

kind of... you can create a hash of the video, and store the hash on a blockchain.

Then when viewing the video in the future, you can check it's hash and compare it to the one stored on chain to be sure the video wasn't tampered with.

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

#119

Post by noelsusman »

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #63
ouid wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The New York Post story you linked is just a write up of original reporting done by CBS.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-f...

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

#120

Post by hanniabu »

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?

This won't change much compared to now. There are videos of Trump saying something, then in an interview he denies he ever said that. People believe that he never said those things and real proof is dismissed. What I'm saying is, people believe lies even when there's no proof and when there's video proving that what was said is a lie.

Post reply on HN