21–30 of 43 posts
It would be really cool if it actually worked. Saw the recent videos and they are pretty much all a mess. Anyone knows of something like this that works? Links? Thank you.
Select a headshot video of a person speaking and an image that you would like to bring to life. Make sure both image and the video are cropped so mainly the face is visible. (no rotated images/videos)
Yeah this deep fake is flawed enough to be amusing. But I know we're probably only 1-2 years away from producing extremely convincing deep fakes at a whim. In my mind, blockchain is the only thing that can counterbalance this tech. We need blockchain signed photos and videos to ensure authenticity.
What stops me from signing my own deepfaked video and putting that on the blockchain?
Digital signatures to validate a source and recording method are needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh... why is blockchain the only answer? Blockchain or any signing system, PGP, shared key, is only as good as the person/entity signing it. Who will perform that signing that you trust... CNN? Fox News? Google? THE US GOVERNMENT?!
Isn’t that the whole point of blockchain? A distributed ledger with no central authority so no single entity has the power to manipulate the history...
History is only as good as the one telling the story. In this case, who inserted the initial video? The FIRST person who inserted gets to say "this is truth".
With Bitcoin what's being traded existed from the beginning. It was "mined" from the original pool. Here we all collectively said, "we trust that original pool not to be shifty". So because we trust that original source, we can trade these "items" confidently.
Here the question isn't "Proof of work", it's "proof of source" which currently I cannot see a good solution for.
Yeah this deep fake is flawed enough to be amusing. But I know we're probably only 1-2 years away from producing extremely convincing deep fakes at a whim. In my mind, blockchain is the only thing that can counterbalance this tech. We need blockchain signed photos and videos to ensure authenticity.
Why blockchain? You just need the original video and its metadata to be signed by the camera. A blockchain would be just as useless here as every other place a blockchain has been applied.
The use of blockchain is important as a global timestamp that can be trusted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sigh... why is blockchain the only answer? Blockchain or any signing system, PGP, shared key, is only as good as the person/entity signing it. Who will perform that signing that you trust... CNN? Fox News? Google? THE US GOVERNMENT?!
Any public open source blockchain. Whichever one the market rallies around, probably Ethereum. Because it's a consistent point of reference. The apps / phones could sign using zero knowledge proofs, so you don't have to give away personal details to verify. At the very least this needs to be done with public figures in particular, since a convincing fake video could invoke a riot or cause a war.
So as a bad actor, I'll just take a video of a deep fake video with my self signing phone to circumvent your trust?
Ah but it's easy to spot a video of a video!
But what if I just replace the camera with a direct feed system?
That's absurd amount of money/work, why would you do that?
Because I'm a state level actor and I really want this war to start.
BTC & Eth are trustworthy because the original pool we can perform tests against the math which it is built upon. In fact, it doesn't matter who uploaded BTC/Eth. The system is a self contained math problem.
An uploaded video does not have such self-testing ability because it always comes down to "who" took it and who uploaded it.
"Trust at the source" or "Who to trust?" is now the problem. Blockchain cannot solve that alone. I don't know any system that could.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that the whole point of blockchain? A distributed ledger with no central authority so no single entity has the power to manipulate the history...
Let's say you can't manipulate history (it's possible btw). History is only as good as the one telling the story. In this case, who inserted the initial video? The FIRST person who inserted gets to say "this is truth". With Bitcoin what's being traded existed from the beginning. It was "mined" from the original pool. Here we all collectively said, "we trust that original pool not to be shifty". So because we trust th…
Proof of Authority. What matters is the reputation of the source. You can have varying degrees of trustworthiness based on an source's reputation, which is built up on the chain.
For example, Craig Wright has faced a lot of backlash for claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. There's been no way for him to be proven wrong. Recently, someone signed a transaction with an address that hadn't moved Bitcoin since 2009 (implying it was an early adopter or contributor) and they called out Wright's lie (he had claimed to own that block).
So Wright lost credibility. That's what we need. We need the ability to develop reputation on the blockchain and a way to punish that reputation economically for posting invalid data.
EDIT (I'm out of HN replies): Reputation can be established based on a staking transaction. You create a smart contract for say, independent journalist Tim Pool. He signs it and stakes some amount and publicly declares that address to be his. He posts all his videos with a signature embedded that can be validated against that contract. The hardware itself (with algos signed by chip manufacturer) could also sign the video. An open source app could also sign. If you've got 3 signatures on a video HW, SW, and individual (associated with smart contract address) and a public blockchain timestamp, you've got a high degree of trustworthiness in that footage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's say you can't manipulate history (it's possible btw). History is only as good as the one telling the story. In this case, who inserted the initial video? The FIRST person who inserted gets to say "this is truth". With Bitcoin what's being traded existed from the beginning. It was "mined" from the original pool. Here we all collectively said, "we trust that original pool not to be shifty". So because we trust th…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_authority Proof of Authority. What matters is the reputation of the source. You can have varying degrees of trustworthiness based on an source's reputation, which is built up on the chain. For example, Craig Wright has faced a lot of backlash for claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. There's been no way for him to be proven wrong. Recently, someone signed a transaction with an addr…
That trust is built on 2 things. PGP is trusthworthy and BTC is worth listening to.
I replied to your other post, but it's embedded in "why is BTC worth listening to"?
BTC/Eth is trustworthy because fundamentally it is a self-contained math problem that can be self tested by anyone.
Today, there is no way to make video self-testable in a trustworthy fashion because you will always be asking "Who uploaded/created this?"
Quite brave leaving random Internet generated content on the front page of the site.
There's a huge and qualitative difference between the example video and the 'recent videos' below. The example video shows the face being stretched mostly around the mouth, and without extreme or sudden changes. Sure, it looks fake, but it seems coherent. It's almost the kind of thing a human would make in a comedy setting. But in the generated videos below, I see a lot of the issues we often get with generative mode…
Yeah this deep fake is flawed enough to be amusing. But I know we're probably only 1-2 years away from producing extremely convincing deep fakes at a whim. In my mind, blockchain is the only thing that can counterbalance this tech. We need blockchain signed photos and videos to ensure authenticity.