Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras) • Hacker News Board

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#311

Post by teakettle42 » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 12:36 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #309

teakettle42 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be interpreting the internet’s historically libertarian ethics as not thinking about ethics, rather than what it really was (and is) — an intentional, studied decision to prioritize openness and individual empowerment, instead of trying to enforce safety through prior restraint. Individual empowerment enables incredible creativity, engenders individual and societal resilience, and leaves space for those w…

I don't think we have read the same bits about the history of the internet. Openness and individual empowerment had absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the net. The main purpose as far as I have it down was to create a method for (government) researchers to communicate and to have a reliable communications network in wartime. https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtm... Feel free to rewrit…

No; your condescension aside, I’m thinking of the internet I grew up on, from the late 80s and into the 90s.

Gopher, Usenet, and IRC. Eventually, the web.

Yes, the internet grew out of government projects, but it was rooted in the openness of academic networks.

The “trust and safety” ethos is merely the staid hall monitors of the status quo doing their best to co-opt something that was only possible to create outside their influence.

Its healthy for them to lose, sometimes. Maybe even most of the time.

Opposing the “trust and safety” hall monitors is an ethical position, just one that’s (seemingly) entirely contrary to your own.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#312

Post by Vecr » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 2:46 AM UTC

mavhc wrote: post #96

thrwawy283 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's a good idea to give everyone a gun, but I do like the argument that the disadvantaged have the same opportunity to pull a trigger. I hope humanity learns wisdom as quickly as we innovate. We've made it this far..

And as well as not trusting that video of someone is really that person, I choose to live far away from places where anyone can get a gun

Where anyone can get a gun? If you live in the middle of nowhere, lots of people around you will have guns (though they could be dozens of miles away in the best case), and obviously where there are more people the police can get guns, or call up the military if they can't for some reason (what country is that though?)

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#313

Post by Abishek_Muthian » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 3:19 AM UTC

yosito wrote: post #57

A few months ago, the IRS made me verify my identity using some janky video conferencing software where I had to hold up a copy of my passport. The software was so hard to use, that I can't believe average people manage to do it. Now, real-time deep fakes are literally easier to create than using the video verification software itself. This will have interesting societal implications.

In India, Digital Signature issuing companies use webcam video to authenticate the applicant as well(I don't think even holding document is required); That digital-sign is used everywhere from signing tax filing to paying taxes.

I hope deep-fake detection software can compete with deep-fake generation software, I've been tracking this need-gap on my problem validation forum for a while now[1].

That said, There are ethical usages of deep-fake videos as well; In fact I might checkout this very tool to see if I can use it for 'smiling more in the videos', remembering to smile during videos is exhaustive for me. There are other ethical usages like limiting the physical effort needed to produce video content for those with disability(like myself)[2].

[1] https://needgap.com/problems/21-deep-fake-video-detection-fa...

[2] https://needgap.com/problems/20-deep-fake-video-generating-s...

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#314

Post by Vecr » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 3:21 AM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #310

avereveard wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

history say you cannot control how selected the selected group is, no matter the implications, i.e. nuclear bomb secrets from manatthan project finding their way into russian hands https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spies-who-spilled-ato...

That's just not true. If you couldn't control the spread at all, some terrorist group would have already detonated one.

They could probably make one (it would probably fizzle though, but that's still nasty, even if not full theoretical power), they just don't have the highly enriched uranium to do it.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#315

Post by autoexec » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 4:00 AM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #239

thingification wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly am puzzled: the both of you (if I understand you right), do you really think some fake videos will cause there to "be no such thing as trust"? Why? Videos aren't the only way to understand the world, and there was never any such thing as "direct observation" in the first place.

Videos are considered one of the more authoritative sources of factual information. E.g. Imagine how disruptive it’d be if a deepfake of Biden announcing support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine were to circulate during those first hours of the invasion? Sure, there are other communications channels that would be able to dispute the authenticity of that video, but would those channels be as fast and as (apparently) au…

Why weren't people this concerned about the existence of photoshop? To this day people continue to try to fool and manipulate others by using it. You don't even need video or photos to trick someone. Plenty of people lie in text, but text editors aren't considered dangerous tools.

People have been aware that lies can be typed for as long as we've had typing, but it still works. The fact that it still works a lot of the time hasn't ended the world. People are more aware that they can't trust a photo, yet people still fall for edited photos, and the world still turns. I don't think deep fakes are any different. Videos were not very trust worthy before deep fakes. Special effects have been a thing for many many decades. The world is still learning exactly how untrustworthy video is and there will always be people who fall for tricks and manipulations, but eventually the majority will adjust and society won't crumble.

We'll put our trust in what we see with our own eyes and in people and organizations who have proven themselves to be trustworthy. We'll worry about how real something is in proportion to what it would mean to us if it were real. When it really matters we'll trust experts to authenticate a photo or video as legitimate just like we do currently. If the world becomes less dependent on information presented in formats that can we know can be convincingly manipulated we'll all be better off. History tells us technology like this in the hands of the public won't cause people to abandon faith in everything and anything they see, or destroy civilization. We all just get a little more savvy, more industries will take advantage of the cool tech, lots of people will have fun and games with it, not much really changes for most people.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#316

Post by formerkrogemp » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 4:06 AM UTC

barnabee wrote: post #43

Planktonne wrote: post #7

> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…

I’d argue there is a moral imperative to create and release tools like this as free and open source software so that anyone has access to them and can choose whether to use them, rather than only sophisticated and well resourced adversaries. IMO the creators should feel good about their actions, even if they feel bad or apprehensive about the direction of the world because this technology exists at all.

We open sourced 3d printed AK-47s. We disclaim any responsibility for the ensuing mass shootings.

We produced the software to run the drones. We didn't personally deploy them to kill those children.

We built software to guide the rockets. We didn't personally fire them at those hospitals.

We chose to startup our company providing profiles of suspects using scraped, publically available data to any government agency. What they do with the information isn't our problem.

We wrote the software, but it's not our fault or problem what happens because of who uses and because of how they use it. Our intent was good. The market and demand was there. What's wrong with providing a supply? How many software creators feel culpable? Vanishingly few. Who cares when comp is high?

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#317

Post by krapp » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 4:07 AM UTC

formerkrogemp wrote: post #316

barnabee wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue there is a moral imperative to create and release tools like this as free and open source software so that anyone has access to them and can choose whether to use them, rather than only sophisticated and well resourced adversaries. IMO the creators should feel good about their actions, even if they feel bad or apprehensive about the direction of the world because this technology exists at all.

We open sourced 3d printed AK-47s. We disclaim any responsibility for the ensuing mass shootings. We produced the software to run the drones. We didn't personally deploy them to kill those children. We built software to guide the rockets. We didn't personally fire them at those hospitals. We chose to startup our company providing profiles of suspects using scraped, publically available data to any government agency.…

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department!" says Wernher von Braun

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#318

Post by heinternets » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 4:15 AM UTC

ethanbond wrote: post #268

thingification wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of this is not "no such thing as trust". I too dread a little all the mischief that's going to happen while the world learns about this. But people don't have to uncritically believe "the evidence of their own eyes", even though that has been very useful corrective to many mistakes, and will I guess be less so now. Evidence doesn't work that way: people always have to interpret everything in terms of their unders…

I agree. I don't think this in particular will land us in "land of no trust." I think it, and innovations like it, move us clearly towards that land though. The advent of widespread photo/video evidence was a big help for people trying to interpret was real and what wasn't. Then photography was knocked out of service by e.g. Photoshop (generally "easy photo manipulation"). Now video is getting knocked out of service…

Trusting photos wasn't destroyed by the advent of photoshop, same with videos.

There are ways to prove authenticity, e.g. with cryptographic signing.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#319

Post by avereveard » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:10 AM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #310

avereveard wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

history say you cannot control how selected the selected group is, no matter the implications, i.e. nuclear bomb secrets from manatthan project finding their way into russian hands https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/spies-who-spilled-ato...

That's just not true. If you couldn't control the spread at all, some terrorist group would have already detonated one.

Knowledge spread and stealing one/building an enrichment facility are quite far apart.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#320

Post by polartx » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 5:34 AM UTC

burrows wrote: post #308

polartx wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I didn’t have to scroll this far to find your rational perspective. Lets take the famous LockPickingLawyer of YouTube, is he responsible for every crime where the thief defeats a lock that he has demonstrated the weaknesses of? I would say “no!”. Exposing a weakness puts the onus of securing said weaknesses on those that sell technology/devices/services that market themselves as “secure”.

This is just some rationalization that security nerds like to regurgitate on each other.

Exposing a vulnerability in a public forum is the fastest way to patch said vulnerability. You don’t have to be a security nerd to connect the dots