Live data from Hacker News

Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

arstechnica.com

21–30 of 119 posts

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#21
post #9

That's a terrible Deepfake to be honest. This is a much better example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhUhypV27w

More convincing for the face, sure, but last I checked Schwarzenegger had much, much more body mass than in that video. Does anyone know if the technology for faking body shape (and accessories too maybe) is anywhere near as good as for faces yet?

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#22
post #4

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…

It's my understanding (and experience) that Snapchat filters are even more impressive and that Snap CEO Evan Spiegel has pretty much bet the company on AR [1].

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/22/20927521/snap-growth-ear...

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#23

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 didn't even realise it was Data until reading the article. I just thought Mark's eyes were looking a little weird.

Like he forgot to use his ocular oil drops.

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#24

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.

The major problem of our time is trust (for both "small t" personal trust and "capital T" trust in a crypto sense). While any feeling of absolute or universal truth is probably beyond our grasp at this point, people will (and largely have) learned which sources are considered 'trusted' within the circles of influence they travel in.

The people who care about the 'legitimacy' of a news organization are moderates who are passively engaged and are being rapidly driven to the margins. The 'objective truth' of the matter is less relevant than how it is received. Activist politics is en vogue thanks to the feelings of helplessness brought on by globalization, and if you're not an activist your views are not really an important part of the process anymore. You'll have to pick one of the two options that the activists come up with because they won't show up to vote for a centrist candidate. In either case, a moderate platform cannot win.

For the record, I feel the above situation is incredibly dystopian; but we're hardly the first country where pathos supersedes logos and ethos.

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#25
post #4

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…

Do you mean Snapchat filters?

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#26

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.

Man, you're reading way too much into my headline. The headline describes the article accurately: I created a deepfake. It took me two weeks and I spent $552. The headline doesn't say anything about whether it was convincing or not.

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#27
post #4

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…

Do you mean Snapchat filters?

[deleted]

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#28
post #4

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…

Do you mean Snapchat filters?

Nope, pretty sure Instagram has their own as well.

Re: Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552

#30
post #4

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…

I don't think it's so much that people will be fooled by fake video, as that people can no longer rely on video as evidence. Up until now, video has been the gold standard of "proof" that an event happened. Quotes, photos, and (to an extent) audio have been fakeable for a long time, and they are mistrusted accordingly. And while CGI has slowly made it harder to spot fake events, videos of speech remained mostly safe.

It's won't upend the world, but we are losing a hugely helpful tool that has been relied upon for 60 years.

Post reply on HN