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

Post by noelsusman » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 8:28 PM UTC

ISL wrote: post #48

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…

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.

Post by bowmessage » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 8:32 PM UTC

zaphod420 wrote: post #118

Reason077 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by CPLX » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 8:47 PM UTC

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?

Post by syshum » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

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…

Post by Jamwinner » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 8:56 PM UTC

ajmurmann wrote: post #110

armagon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a regional thing. I'm from a rural community in Canada, and of course we answer the phone. Just floors me to visit my mother-in-law in Texas; when we visited eight years ago, she'd answer the phone; now she doesn't answer her cell or her home phone unless it makes a distinctive ring. I'd hate to need to get ahold of her using someone else's phone.

Obviously I'm not your mother-in-law, but I also don't answer my phone unless it shows it's someone I know because 95% of calls I get are spam. However, I will check my voicemail. So far every legitimate caller has left one to my knowledge.