11–20 of 119 posts
I mean. No. I understand the point of the article is “look how much I did with so little.” And it’s really good in terms of how much was done. But the final deliverable isn’t at all convincing. Clickbait title.
I totally agree. After watching only a second of the video I am convinced that this is not Mark Zuckerberg and that this video has been faked.
A few weeks ago my girlfriend made me discover Instagram filters. Obviously they're not in "deep fake" territory but I was still massively impressed by the quality of the face recognition and tracking coupled with some rather advanced 3D reconstructions on top. 15 years ago that would've been science fiction, today it's a free gimmicky feature in an app running on commodity hardware. There are also apps that will smo…
I don't really understand this argument at all. We've been in this "post truth" world for a long time already for every form of media other than video. Text quotes, photos, and audio can all be easily faked. If I post a ridiculous quote here and say it's from Obama, you won't believe me. But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. We've been here for a long time already, now those standards…
"deepfake news"
I can just hear people saying it now. Joking aside, and not taking in ANY ethical/unethical misuse considerations this software is capable of, it is really cool tech.
A few weeks ago my girlfriend made me discover Instagram filters. Obviously they're not in "deep fake" territory but I was still massively impressed by the quality of the face recognition and tracking coupled with some rather advanced 3D reconstructions on top. 15 years ago that would've been science fiction, today it's a free gimmicky feature in an app running on commodity hardware. There are also apps that will smo…
I don't really understand this argument at all. We've been in this "post truth" world for a long time already for every form of media other than video. Text quotes, photos, and audio can all be easily faked. If I post a ridiculous quote here and say it's from Obama, you won't believe me. But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. We've been here for a long time already, now those standards…
Sure, and that's part of the danger. Convincing deep fakes will be used to delegitimize mainstream news organizations, as with what happened with Dan Rather - a trusted source presented faked documents.
I mean. No. I understand the point of the article is “look how much I did with so little.” And it’s really good in terms of how much was done. But the final deliverable isn’t at all convincing. Clickbait title.
Made by a dude who has next to no experience in the field. Now imagine what a guy who knows what he's doing can do with a bit more money. That's what the allusion here is; the fact that a Reporter with 500$ even comes close should be an alarm signal to you.
ex - Bill Hader/Tom Cruise - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrhRBb-1Ig
I think one thing that could have helped the reporter is if they had reencoded the original Zuckerberg footage into something with a lower bitrate. The fine details/imperfections on his forehead contrasted with the lower fidelity of data's face provides a little too much contrast. It doesn't help that most of the source data for Data's face is lower quality, plus he has so much makeup pancaked on his face. I think if those factors were accounted for, the reporter's results would have been much more convincing even though he's a deepfake neophyte.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand this argument at all. We've been in this "post truth" world for a long time already for every form of media other than video. Text quotes, photos, and audio can all be easily faked. If I post a ridiculous quote here and say it's from Obama, you won't believe me. But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. We've been here for a long time already, now those standards…
> But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. Sure, and that's part of the danger. Convincing deep fakes will be used to delegitimize mainstream news organizations, as with what happened with Dan Rather - a trusted source presented faked documents.
I mean. No. I understand the point of the article is “look how much I did with so little.” And it’s really good in terms of how much was done. But the final deliverable isn’t at all convincing. Clickbait title.
Made by a dude who has next to no experience in the field. Now imagine what a guy who knows what he's doing can do with a bit more money. That's what the allusion here is; the fact that a Reporter with 500$ even comes close should be an alarm signal to you.
I'm NOT claiming that this is the case, I'm just saying we don't have a reason to believe why this can't be the case.
I mean. No. I understand the point of the article is “look how much I did with so little.” And it’s really good in terms of how much was done. But the final deliverable isn’t at all convincing. Clickbait title.
The absolute autofellatio state of hype media these days. Ha-ha, look at how this autistic CEO looks like a robot, and shame on you for imagining what Charlize Theron looks like naked. Tune in next week where I try and fail to launch an ERC-token, and use that experience to argue that cryptocurrency adoption will be delayed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. Sure, and that's part of the danger. Convincing deep fakes will be used to delegitimize mainstream news organizations, as with what happened with Dan Rather - a trusted source presented faked documents.
But why is this the danger now in a way that it hasn't been previously? You could have presented fake documents for hundreds of years now, but it's not like we don't have any credible news organizations as a result.
A few weeks ago my girlfriend made me discover Instagram filters. Obviously they're not in "deep fake" territory but I was still massively impressed by the quality of the face recognition and tracking coupled with some rather advanced 3D reconstructions on top. 15 years ago that would've been science fiction, today it's a free gimmicky feature in an app running on commodity hardware. There are also apps that will smo…
I don't really understand this argument at all. We've been in this "post truth" world for a long time already for every form of media other than video. Text quotes, photos, and audio can all be easily faked. If I post a ridiculous quote here and say it's from Obama, you won't believe me. But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. We've been here for a long time already, now those standards…
And what about when this happens at a state-sponsored level (This is absolutely already in development, if it hasn’t happened already...). “Did you see that Fox News exclusive video leaked from the Bernie Sanders campaign? Yeah he was holding a private dinner for a bunch of Billionaires. They say they got it from some Russian oligarch he invited. So much for grass roots change, I think I’ll just stay home this Election Day.” Or the corollary: “That smoking-gun tape the Do-Nothing Dems have of me at Putin’s personal sex trafficking center, where the two of us are laughing about having Epstein take the hit? Fake news! They’re called deepfakes, and they make these just absolutely incredible fake videos. Not real at all though. Only trust what the Government-sanctioned media says!”
As per your other point, given the GANs that are used to make these are precisely a deep fake AI fooling a deep fake detection AI, aren’t we already there? Further, when the government is making the generator, a privately trained discriminator has no chance. How would you even train that? Get the government to give you a bunch of generated fake media so that you can develop a really spot-on model? I don’t think so.
Two predictions:
Deepfakes will play a roll in the 2020 election.
Deepfakes will play a roll in every election thereafter.
If this doesn’t concern you, I don’t know what would. The thing with the “post-truth world” is that once people think we’re in it, we are.
A few weeks ago my girlfriend made me discover Instagram filters. Obviously they're not in "deep fake" territory but I was still massively impressed by the quality of the face recognition and tracking coupled with some rather advanced 3D reconstructions on top. 15 years ago that would've been science fiction, today it's a free gimmicky feature in an app running on commodity hardware. There are also apps that will smo…
I don't really understand this argument at all. We've been in this "post truth" world for a long time already for every form of media other than video. Text quotes, photos, and audio can all be easily faked. If I post a ridiculous quote here and say it's from Obama, you won't believe me. But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. We've been here for a long time already, now those standards…
"With software there are only two outcomes: either the users control the program or the program controls the users. If the program is not under user control, and the developer controls everything, then the program is an instrument of unjust power, applied by the powers that be."
Deepfakes are just a continuation of "fake news" (formerly known as propaganda), and the end outcome is we either succumb to those who use it, or adapt - filtering out the bs isn't easy, but it's not an insurmountable task, either.