Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#101

Post by baddox » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:35 PM UTC

dTal wrote: post #60

bilekas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So proud to be the Man of the year 2020" - Me Its fake, just because I said it, doesn't make the content true.

This seems to be a language drift worth nipping in the bud. It's not "fake". It's a lie. When something purports to be something it's not, "fake" is an adjective describing that thing. "Lie" is the adjective that describes the claim . If you tweet that you are Man of the Year 2020, you are fake, a phony. The tweet , on the other hand, is simply a lie.

Huh? Then how is anything “fake”? That counterfeit Rolex is a real physical object.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#102

Post by AndrewUnmuted » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

bilekas wrote: post #48

tsukurimashou wrote: post #47

So, where do we exactly draw the line with these things? Considering everything you see on media has been altered in some ways. To me it looks like the same problem as "fake news", how do you define "fake news" considering every piece of news has at least some bias from the person that wrote it. I think it would be a better idea to educate people about these things, just like when "Photoshop" and other similar softwa…

> I think it would be a better idea to educate people about these things This argument is nonsense an innefective. Try and explain to your elders about what a deep fake is, and how to identify one. The movie : "The Irishman" used a lot of the technology successfully to take years off the cast. Applying labels to known false media is not the same as an opinion based 'fact' or alternative facts. So don't come with this…

> The movie : "The Irishman" used a lot of the technology successfully to take years off the cast.

Personally, I did not find the use of the "technology" to be "successful." Like so many other ridiculous gimmicks used in movies to attract the attention of the press and the Academy, it may have at times achieved its very singular visual goals, but that doesn't matter one bit. Because you can't make Al Pacino and Robert De Niro - both in their 70s now - act like 30 year-olds.

Without the massive press push about this technology, the film would have likely suffered a lot more ridicule about this "de-aging" tactic. Hollywood will not be able to convince me that they have actually achieved something good here, until they are able to prove this is not just technology meant to expand the lifetime value generated from their beloved aging actors, for whom they have no true planned replacements.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#103

Post by at_a_remove » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

rhcom2 wrote: post #91

mc32 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a side by side of an opinion editor of the WaPo. Last year she was saying how important the Iowa caucuses were. This year she said how unimportant they are. The same person, diametric takes on the same subject. The only difference is I guess her preferred candidate didn’t do as well...

The charitable interpretation is to include the other difference, which is time. People change their opinions.

And they change them at such convenient times! I recall pieces in the same publication as to why we have the electoral college, why it is a good idea, and so forth. That suddenly changed. The timing is coincidental, and at times I think that charitability requires too much suspension of disbelief.

Most of this looks like the twenty-four hour news cycle wanting a lock on credibility and deciding who gets to sit at the table. It's a shame, because that would have been a good discussion to have, but they've made their reputations so ... poor.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#104

Post by Bartweiss » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

captainredbeard wrote: post #95

kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide This is exactly why the policy is needed. If a baby is born with its spinal column outside of its body, a quivering mass of braindead flesh, unsustainable, destined for a slow and lingering death-- it should be terminated. That is infanticide. Humane infanticide. People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about th…

Do you have the ability to read minds? Because you're doing some mind reading in that comment. Many people find the flippant nature of his response disturbing. I'm not "anti-abortion" but I found the Northam situation squicky. YMMV, and that's the beauty of living in a free and liberal society. Your comment would probably win hearts and minds if it was more about educating folks about the medical reality some parents…

It's not just the tone - there are plenty of religious people who flatly disagree with the moral claim above.

"The baby is going to die, so this isn't murder, and it's going to suffer, so this is mercy" is not necessarily a background assumption. For some people, those claims are the debate. Deontologists actually exist, and some of them sincerely believe in souls, and eternal damnation or paradise. To them, the doctor is committing a mortal sin, and for the infant any life long enough for baptism can mean the difference between limbo and heaven. Whatever Northam's intent, they would genuinely find his position morally similar to any other infanticide.

I don't intend to argue for that position, but I think it's important to realize how quickly "simple" rulings on misinformation or malice can become judgements on entire ideologies. If Bentham, Kant, and the Pope would all disagree on whether a choice is ethical and humane, perhaps it's not a matter to be settled by Twitter moderation rules?

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#105

Post by hombre_fatal » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

ducttape12 wrote: post #20

You don't need advanced AI to create hyper realistic deep fake news. You just need to take a picture of X candidate, stick a made up quote beneath them, and put it on Facebook. There's enough people on social media who will share that without verifying it.

You can see this on Reddit. Notice how many submissions are just an image + caption (no source) with thousands of people reacting to it at face value.

I always chuckled at the idea that deepfakes are going to be the problem which a simple jpg already works today and is more effective than video because people will actually click it.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#106

Post by Bartweiss » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:55 PM UTC

shrikant wrote: post #83

ducttape12 wrote: post #20

You don't need advanced AI to create hyper realistic deep fake news. You just need to take a picture of X candidate, stick a made up quote beneath them, and put it on Facebook. There's enough people on social media who will share that without verifying it.

A few years back (I think around early 2013?), 4chan ran a targeted campaign to superimpose quotes by Hitler onto random celebrity images pandering to specific communities and get them highly upvoted on related subreddits. They achieved a reasonable degree of success, so I suppose lulz were gained.

Which also begs another question about the lines around 'fake'. If you put a quote next to a picture of someone who didn't say it, is that deceptive? "Well sure, the entire point of 4chan's stunt was to deceive people".

Alright, fine. What if the attribution is just plain mistaken in a misleading way? What if you put an inspirational quote next to someone it applies to, instead of the speaker? If the speaker couldn't possibly have said it, or the quote is famously from someone else, so the goal is comedy? Or the countless pictures misattributing that "...fire inside me..." quote which escaped from Fallout: New Vegas? (Is the deceptiveness different when it's shared as a mistake vs meme vs prank? Can your algorithm tell?)

Twitter's put at least some thought into that, thankfully. They talk about "significantly" altered content and whether it's "shared in a deceptive manner". But good lord is that a fuzzy thing to decide or automate.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#107

Post by eanzenberg » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

kyrieeschaton wrote: post #68

Of course they didn't restrict themselves to "deepfakes"; they made sure to encompass anything "deceptive", "manipulated" media, "tropes", and "unwanted attention" - which, given every video clip has a start and end point, seems tailor made to allow them to flag eg clips of Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide or Hillary Clinton collapsing in public as leading to an incorrect political conclusion rather than being act…

Hillary admitted to collapsing due to pneumonia in her interview on the Howard Stern Show recently. So unless you consider the health of potential presidents "deceptive, manipulated, tropes, unwanted attention" etc., then it's news that ought to be taken seriously.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#108

Post by SkyBelow » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

kilo_bravo_3 wrote: post #85

kyrieeschaton wrote: post #68

Of course they didn't restrict themselves to "deepfakes"; they made sure to encompass anything "deceptive", "manipulated" media, "tropes", and "unwanted attention" - which, given every video clip has a start and end point, seems tailor made to allow them to flag eg clips of Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide or Hillary Clinton collapsing in public as leading to an incorrect political conclusion rather than being act…

>Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide This is exactly why the policy is needed. If a baby is born with its spinal column outside of its body, a quivering mass of braindead flesh, unsustainable, destined for a slow and lingering death-- it should be terminated. That is infanticide. Humane infanticide. People going around yelling about "Ralph Northam endorsing infanticide" don't care about that. They don't care about th…

>That is infanticide. Humane infanticide.

But we can all play that game by picking very selective definitions despite knowing that is not what the other person means.

>They don't care about the baby, and they CERTAINLY don't care about the mother.

How do you know the intentions of the people making such statements? Is this any better than those who make similar assumptions about those who fight for pro-choice positions?

>They just want to stir up shit and get people yelling.

Also known as engaging voters to increase voter turn out. A valuable strategy to increase voter participation when my team does it, a despicable tactic to push partisan laws when the other team does it.

>And because they assume that all people are as amoral (or immoral) as they are

And now you are labeling them as amoral and hinting at possibly being immoral? This goes pretty well beyond engaging in honest discourse, no?

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#109

Post by eanzenberg » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

ducttape12 wrote: post #20

You don't need advanced AI to create hyper realistic deep fake news. You just need to take a picture of X candidate, stick a made up quote beneath them, and put it on Facebook. There's enough people on social media who will share that without verifying it.

Yeah, deepfakes are a red herring. Manipulating photos is easier and cheaper with photoshop, but most photos dont even need to be manipulated to become a meme. Just capture and caption the photo.

Re: Twitter to label deepfakes and other deceptive media

#110

Post by SkyBelow » Wed, Feb 05, 2020, 6:05 PM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #31

Truth is too important to let the public decide what is true. I think that twitter doesn't have enough resources to bear this burden alone. So it is better if the state give a helping hand. A dedicated ministry of truth should be there when Twitter cannot hold the line against the ever more devious deceptions. Also since a lot of the speech online is hate speech we should probably also make a state organization that…

I like the general idea of where you are going, but you go way too fast towards the end and jump the tracks. I think this post would work much better if you dropped the ministry of love bit and were slower introducing the ministry of truth. I would also suggest avoiding the phrase "ministry of truth" and stick to something a bit more generic, such as "a ministry dedicated to uncovering falsehoods". Still very on point to the extent of having a feeling of lacking subtlety, but without the over the top forced feeling of using the exact phrase.