Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can tell when a face doesnt fit • Hacker News Board

Re: Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can tell when a face doesnt fit

#101

Post by Erlich_Bachman » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 6:30 AM UTC

lolc wrote: post #92

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very low-resolution understanding of what a religion is. It has much more depth to it. (The writer of Sapiens actively tries to ignore this by reducing every single belief humans have (including religions) to random meme propagation.)

That religions are just mind-parasites has become a meme on its own. To me, the book "Darwin's Cathedral" made a very good case that we should look at religions as adaptations that allowed creating larger societies. And so I finally came to peace with religion. Will stay atheist, thank you for asking.

Another very thorough analysis I can recommend is Jordan Peterson's youtube series called "Psychological significance of biblical stories". There are about 10 2-3 hour lectures, but they are packed with great content and original thoughts. People think JP is some political activist because of his media portrayal, but in his core he is a student of a much more substantial content that has little to do with politics.

Re: Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can tell when a face doesnt fit

#102

Post by JoshuaDavid » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 7:39 AM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #81

hombre_fatal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other reason not to freak out about this is that we're already far down the path the people think deep fakes are creating. Reddit and Twitter and the internet prove that people will react to an image of text by the tens of thousands, going straight into their brain. All of us have been guilty of this at some point. To me it's naive to freak out about Photoshop and video deepfakes because it reveals that you're co…

The issue with deepfakes is this: at least in the other cases you outline, it's possible to be skeptical and weigh evidence-- including direct photographic and video evidence that is unlikely to be safe (while it may have been possible to fake before, it's been labor intensive and presents more risk that it'd have been messed up). In turn, we can evaluate the credibility of media sources based on how they agree with…

While video is currently unlikely to be entirely fabricated at this point, you might be surprised at what can be accomplished with camera angles, choosing the start and end times of your clip, and cuts and reordering of clips: for a silly example of this, see "Obama sings Call Me Maybe"[1]. Videos can also be staged with varying levels of convincingness.

If you are digging for evidence, the source of your information must be taken into account. Deepfakes will probably be detectable in retrospect, even if they are not detectable at the time of publication, so if you stick with sources with a long history of only publishing real information, you're probably still fine even in the age of deepfakes.

The arguable lack of journalistic sources with a demonstrated history of integrity is its own problem, but not one that is made significantly worse by the presence of deepfakes.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hX1YVzdnpEc

Re: Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can tell when a face doesnt fit

#103

Post by eie7eu3hrruur » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 9:28 AM UTC

mlyle wrote: post #81

hombre_fatal wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other reason not to freak out about this is that we're already far down the path the people think deep fakes are creating. Reddit and Twitter and the internet prove that people will react to an image of text by the tens of thousands, going straight into their brain. All of us have been guilty of this at some point. To me it's naive to freak out about Photoshop and video deepfakes because it reveals that you're co…

The issue with deepfakes is this: at least in the other cases you outline, it's possible to be skeptical and weigh evidence-- including direct photographic and video evidence that is unlikely to be safe (while it may have been possible to fake before, it's been labor intensive and presents more risk that it'd have been messed up). In turn, we can evaluate the credibility of media sources based on how they agree with…

This would be more concerning if the public was actually well informed currently. At present, most media companies have wildly lowered their content standards, normalized clickbait titles that sometimes outright lie, all the while ramping up "it's an op-ed so it's not a lie it's just an opinion!" pieces. At the same time we've never been more interested in what government agencies have to say including what they have to say about the government itself. This world of a semi-informed populace doesn't exist, the public is already choosing information from sources that appeal to their emotions rather than logic. What person on the street actually has a nuanced understanding of an industry they're not participating in? How many have any real idea what government contractor work actually looks like in those same industries or understands what the warzones their government operates in are actually like? Most don't even understand other cultures that vaguely resemble their own, just look at how few westerners have the vaguest understanding of sex culture across asia. The only thing people know anymore is memes and rhetorical factoids. You can't poison a toxic well.

Re: Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can tell when a face doesnt fit

#104

Post by dTal » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:15 AM UTC

Natsu wrote: post #79

nothis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, one reason not to freak out about this is Photoshop. It's been around for decades. Perfect photographic fakes (literally called "photoshops") are possible. Yet is there a great crisis of fake photographs taking over the news? Not really. The actual "fake news" barely even bother with photoshop (and those for whom it works, don't care about the quality). It's somehow still fairly easy to get context and at som…

Maybe, but I've found that a lot of viral images are doctored in one way or another. Here are some links to recent examples of doctored photos. I know I've seen at least the deceptive image of cops "pointing a gun at children" when they were actually not on the front page of Reddit, so it's not like manipulated images have no effect: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/884-Pr... http://hackerfactor.…

That blog is frightening and informative - it gives some idea of the sheer scale of misinformation we have to cope with now.

Re: Stopping deepfake news with an AI algorithm that can tell when a face doesnt fit

#105

Post by rojobuffalo » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 4:47 PM UTC

nothis wrote: post #75

yes_man wrote: post #16

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…

For me, one reason not to freak out about this is Photoshop. It's been around for decades. Perfect photographic fakes (literally called "photoshops") are possible. Yet is there a great crisis of fake photographs taking over the news? Not really. The actual "fake news" barely even bother with photoshop (and those for whom it works, don't care about the quality). It's somehow still fairly easy to get context and at som…

I'd argue voice and video are substantially more persuasive than static images