Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

metaphysic.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 169 posts

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#51

Post by mc32 »

ketralnis wrote: post #46
mc32 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a bigger question is whether reputable sources --those people trust for whatever reason, would use this technology to prop up ideas and or to create narratives. I don't think it's far-fetched. We've already seen where videos are misattributed[1] to stoke fear or to promote narratives --by widely trusted news sources. [1] This was foreshadowed with "Wag the Dog" but happens often enough in the media today that…

It almost doesn't matter now that people have fractured on which sources they consider reputable. Trump called a CNN reporter "fake news" and presumably his followers think of them the same way I think of Fox. I absolutely think that Fox would use technology to lie, and I'm sure Fox fans think that "the liberal media" would. So people are going to think that reporting is fake whether or not it is

Wasn't 'The Ghost of Kiev' almost entirely fake but the news carried it as real?

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#52

Post by ketralnis »

mc32 wrote: post #51
ketralnis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost doesn't matter now that people have fractured on which sources they consider reputable. Trump called a CNN reporter "fake news" and presumably his followers think of them the same way I think of Fox. I absolutely think that Fox would use technology to lie, and I'm sure Fox fans think that "the liberal media" would. So people are going to think that reporting is fake whether or not it is

Wasn't 'The Ghost of Kiev' almost entirely fake but the news carried it as real?

I don't know. How would you "prove" it? Google it, and look for what other people that agree with you think?

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#53

Post by wongarsu »

cameronh90 wrote: post #8
Workaccount2 wrote: post #2

I know there are a lot of groups working on how to prevent AI disruptions to society, or how to mitigate their impact, but are there any groups working on how to adapt society to a full blown unchained AI world? Like throw out all the safeguards (which seems inevitable) and how does society best operate in a world where no media can be trusted as authentic? Or where "authentic" is cut from the same cloth as "fake"? I…

I suspect we'll need to return to the idea of getting our news from trusted sources, rather than being able to rely on videos on social media being trustworthy. Technically, we could try and build a trusted computing-like system to ensure trust from the sensor all the way to a signed video file output, but keeping that perfectly secure is likely to be virtually impossible except in narrow situations, such as CCTV ins…

80% of the problem could be solved with a reliable signature scheme that allows some remixing of video content. So if CNN publishes a video, signed with their key so it's verifiably CNN, we need the ability to take a 20 second bit of it and still have a valid key attached that verifies that the source is CNN (without trusting the editor). Then you can share clips, remix it, etc, and have integration in social media that attests the source.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#54

Post by cupofpython »

mckirk wrote: post #10
kache_ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one unwavering thing about technology is that it doesn't stop advancing, and we can't use it responsibly. The good news is that we've been going through rapid, rapid tech advancements the past 50 years and we're still here.

The thing I don't like about these 'well people have been complaining about this forever' arguments is that, it's entirely possible to have a) people pointing at an issue for a long time and b) still have that issue get progressively, objectively worse over time. There's that example of people pointing out smartphones might be bad for children, then someone counters with 'well thirty years ago people complained about…

>Graphing the progress of a sinking ship and pointing out that the downwards gradient has been stable for a while now and we should therefore be okay is generally not a useful extrapolation,

I like this analogy. I've had similar thoughts for a while too. Granted I also saw some research that society has been objectively getting better in a lot of areas people think is getting worse (like violence, specifically police abuse) compared to the past. theoretically this is because we have a lot more information now than before, so smaller occurrences are generating a larger impression.

that said, I still very much agree with your point and that it is very applicable to specific individualized issues. Saying that people have been concerned for a while and nothing bad has happened yet is accurate for the situation where nothing bad will happen, AND the situation that it was bad then and is worse now, AND the situation where we are approaching a tipping point / threshold where the bad will start.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#55

Post by endtime »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #2

I know there are a lot of groups working on how to prevent AI disruptions to society, or how to mitigate their impact, but are there any groups working on how to adapt society to a full blown unchained AI world? Like throw out all the safeguards (which seems inevitable) and how does society best operate in a world where no media can be trusted as authentic? Or where "authentic" is cut from the same cloth as "fake"? I…

I think most of those people believe that humans will no longer exist in a "full blown unchained AI world".

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#56

Post by cupofpython »

sitkack wrote: post #15
kache_ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one unwavering thing about technology is that it doesn't stop advancing, and we can't use it responsibly. The good news is that we've been going through rapid, rapid tech advancements the past 50 years and we're still here.

> rapid tech advancements the past 50 years and we're still here This is a tautology. At some point the music stops and you aren't here to make the argument that we are still here.

not entirely tautological. the probability that something bad happens tomorrow if we do X today for the first time is very different than the probability that something bad happens tomorrow if we do X today GIVEN weve been doing X every day for 50 years.

It is still insufficient to say nothing bad will happen, of course

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#57

Post by mc32 »

ketralnis wrote: post #52
mc32 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't 'The Ghost of Kiev' almost entirely fake but the news carried it as real?

I don't know. How would you "prove" it? Google it, and look for what other people that agree with you think?

Well... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/01/ghost-of-kyi... admitted by Ukrainians themselves...

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#58

Post by WanderPanda »

RubyRidgeRandy wrote: post #4

Something I've wondered lately is what will life be like in a post-truth society? we already see examples of this now where a large number of people get their news from fake memes on facebook. There are huge swathes of people who live in their own make-believe world, like those believing wholeheartedly that the 2020 election was stolen. What will life be like when you can't trust any video or interview you see becaus…

I think society will adapt within 1 generation. The tech is already there (signing messages with asymmetric encryption)

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#59

Post by toss1 »

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #47
RubyRidgeRandy wrote: post #4

Something I've wondered lately is what will life be like in a post-truth society? we already see examples of this now where a large number of people get their news from fake memes on facebook. There are huge swathes of people who live in their own make-believe world, like those believing wholeheartedly that the 2020 election was stolen. What will life be like when you can't trust any video or interview you see becaus…

A skeptic (i.e. someone who cares to verify) not being able to trust media because it might be fake is only a minor problem as long as you have at least one trusted channel. The president, say, can just release the statement on that channel and it can be verified there (including cryptographically, say by signing the file or even using HTTPS). If you lose that channel, then you're pretty much screwed because you'll n…

Agree, and it's even worse than that

An incredibly small minority of people even understand your phrase with any actual fidelity and depth of meaning:

>>it can be verified there (including cryptographically, say by signing the file or even using HTTPS)

Even fewer of that microscopic minority have and understand how to use the tools required to verify the video cryptographically, AND even fewer know how to fully validate that the tools themselves are valie (e.g., not compromised by a bogus cert).

Worse yet, even in the good case where everyone is properly skeptical, and 90+% of us figure out that no source is trustworthy, the criminals have won.

The goal of disinformation is not to get people to believe your lie (although the few useful idiots who do may be a nice bonus).

The goal of disinformation is to get people to give up an even seeking the truth - just give up and say "we can't know who's right or what's real" — that is the opening that authoritarians need to take over governments and end democracies.

So yes, this is next-level-screwed material.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#60

Post by gknoy »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #38
Agamus wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing we should be doing is supporting critical thinking at the high school and university level. Unfortunately, it seems we have been dedicated to the opposite of this for about 50 years, at least in the US.

Critical thinking is the most overrated skill ever. "Critical theorists" are the people who fetishize "critical thinking" and all it got them was to embrace cultural Marxism. Constructive thinking is far better than learning how to shit on people, as the skill of critique teaches us...

At the risk of falling for a joke, I'm not sure "critical thinking" means what you think it means. It just means thinking objectively about things before making judgments, it has nothing to do with criticizing people. The things one criticizes are our own beliefs and reasons for believing them.

What do I believe? Why do I believe that? Why do I feel that evidence supports that belief, but not this one? For example, I can explain in a fair bit of detail why I believe that the Apollo landing was not faked. I wouldn't normally bother to explain those reasons, but all of them are based on beliefs and evidence that I've read about, and most of those beliefs are subject to reversal should counter-evidence surface.

Post reply on HN