41–50 of 105 posts
There are two networks: a generator, and a discriminator.
The generator generates a result, the discriminator evaluates that result.
This AI that detect fakes faces could be used to train the discriminator so that the GAN generates even better results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think religion might have proved that people will believe whatever they want to first. The book Sapiens really opened my eyes to people.
Well it took me 35 years but I escaped religion despite being indoctrinated from a young age. And leaving was a difficult choice but education and evidence were the keys that freed me. Piercing cognitive biases is hard, maybe harder if those most in need feel forced.
The solution is the same as it's always been: stick to trustworthy sources and insist that all evidence is traced and corroborated. It remains easy to learn the truth as long as you make a good faith effort to do so. In the worst case we can just stop trusting photographs altogether. We got by just fine before the camera was invented; we can do fine after it becomes obsolete.
Maybe advanced DRMs will be a way forward ? Have camera fingerprint / sign the video, and then every editing videos fingerprint & sign the changes performed, and send everything to a ledger ? Only way to make sure a video is actually coming from the real world...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well it took me 35 years but I escaped religion despite being indoctrinated from a young age. And leaving was a difficult choice but education and evidence were the keys that freed me. Piercing cognitive biases is hard, maybe harder if those most in need feel forced.
I could have clarified more- I’m saying that even with these sort of deep fakes that breaking people out might be just as hard. Especially if objective proof becomes “malleable” similar to how religion can lack objective proof, manipulating people in a new way means we need methods.
And just as religion may often teach people to turn off their critical thinking skills they can be taught to use them again. And human brains evolved to recognize unhealthy or unnatural facial imagery for millennium. So unmasking the more successful techniques may be enough to break us out of the "anything can be fake" malaise.
The problem will increasingly be "whose algorithm do we believe". Internet has revealed that people believe mostly what they want to. We have seen that a large subset of people are believing Bill Gates is behind the pandemic. Why would masses somehow be more rational in picking the most rigorous and objective neural network to recognize deepfakes, than they are in making sense of the world in general? In the end we w…
I think religion might have proved that people will believe whatever they want to first. The book Sapiens really opened my eyes to people.
The problem will increasingly be "whose algorithm do we believe". Internet has revealed that people believe mostly what they want to. We have seen that a large subset of people are believing Bill Gates is behind the pandemic. Why would masses somehow be more rational in picking the most rigorous and objective neural network to recognize deepfakes, than they are in making sense of the world in general? In the end we w…
Because YouTube, Facebook will flag these videos before they become too widespread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't digital signatures the best solution we have for this problem? Commercial entities want to have the priviledge of being able to modify the content submitted by content creators, but the culture of trusting i.e. Twitter over client verification needs to change.
Digital signatures would only match of the contents match bit for bit. This means that you can't recompress/remux/resize the video. This will probably provide a very poor ux for mobile or other bandwidth limited users. Also, if the video was used as part of another video (eg. TV broadcast), you'd either have to splice the digitally signed video into your existing stream (not modifying the bits at all), or provide the…
Remuxing is a hard problem, as it can easily take people out of context, at the same time it's very important to summarize the videos, as people have limited time.
Right now what I see though is that Facebook/Google/Twitter aren't even trying to do the bare minimum end-to-end authentication that Whatsapp/Telegram/Signal already does (create a private key on the end devices, and sign the content to verify the authenticity of the publisher).
Requiring HTTPS was a great first step for tech companies to protect people and from ISPs. But they do nothing to protect people from themselves being compromised (the Twitter incident was a great proof for this).
But it had to be created at some point, it had to exist. This is just an inevitable next step of the progress.
AI novice here. It would seem to me that the detection algorithm can be repurposed into making the original less detectable. A recursion that never ends. An advantage quickly becomes disadvantage. Worse. All information - even facts and truth - has been subverted. What happens when there is no trust? Is this not a road to the New Darker Ages?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network