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

71–80 of 169 posts

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#71

Post by decafmomma »

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…

Here's the thing though: in theory, we should already be skeptical of video and audio evidence on its own.

Most of our institutions, in theory, do not focus on single mediums for assessing veracity of truth. The strength of claims and our ability to split the difference between noise and truth comes down to corroboration. How many other sources strength and work consistently with a claim? That's, in theory, how law enforcement, intelligence, and reporting should work.

In practice, there are massive gaps here and people's attention -> decision is lower than ever.

I don't think it's impossible for us to handle deep fakes, but I sense the same fear you have. I think ultimately it is more about our attention spans, and the "urgency" we feel to act quickly, that will be more of our down fall than the ability to produce fakes more easily.

You don't in fact need a convincing fake to create a powerful conspiracy theory. Honestly you only need an emotional provocation, maybe even some green text on an anonymous web form.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#72

Post by intrasight »

blamestross wrote: post #25
andruby wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you trust a person (or source) and they have a private key that they can properly secure, they could always sign their material with that key. That would prove that the source provided that material. A blockchain could be a way to store and publish that signature & hash. It can't say "this is real", it can only say "that signature belongs to source X".

> A blockchain could be a way to store and publish that signature & hash. yes but it would be a bad one. We have multiple key distribution mechanism that are better for the use case.

I disagree. The key alone is not sufficient nor secure. We will need crowdsourced validity data as well. We need a zero-trust model - and I too believe that blockchains will play a role.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#73

Post by smiddereens »

wazoox wrote: post #48

There are more dangereous AI than deepfakes. Blackrock 10 trillions investments are driven by an AI, Aladdin. It was also sold to some other investors, and controls about 21$ trillion globally. It has basically the power to drive markets worldwide. It's a systemic problem nobody talks about...

No post body was provided.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#74

Post by bee_rider »

toss1 wrote: post #62
WanderPanda wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And how many use or will use the tech, and how many of those will use it competently, and how many of those are competent to validate and know that their checking technology has not been compromised (e.g., hacking or distributing bad authenticity checkers and/or certs like hacking or distributing bad crypto-wallets)?

End-to-end encryption was a giant pain in the butt that required dinking around with PGP or whatever, but now it is a pretty mainstream feature for chat apps (once they figured out how to monetize despite it). Tech takes a while to trickle down to mainstream applications, but it'll get there if the problem becomes well known enough.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#75

Post by blamestross »

intrasight wrote: post #72
blamestross wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A blockchain could be a way to store and publish that signature & hash. yes but it would be a bad one. We have multiple key distribution mechanism that are better for the use case.

I disagree. The key alone is not sufficient nor secure. We will need crowdsourced validity data as well. We need a zero-trust model - and I too believe that blockchains will play a role.

Zero trust models don't exist and the laws of physics (probably) don't provide for them. (Materialism is a real problem in physics nowadays)

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#76

Post by intrasight »

wongarsu wrote: post #53
cameronh90 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

My plan to solve this "20 second bit of it" is that it's done at the analog hole. Whatever is painting those pixels, a smart TV for instance, will be coordinating with cloud services to fingerprint at a relatively high temporal resolution - maybe 5 seconds. The video itself is the signature. But we will need either trusted analog hole vendors or some trusted non-profit organization - or likely both. I think that "viewing" will be delayed by perhaps 30 seconds to allow for that signature analysis. These smart TVs will overlay a scorecard for all displayed content, and owners will be able to set device scorecard thresholds such that low-scoring content will be fuzzed out.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#77

Post by Eupraxias »

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...

I think of critical thinking as the art of being critical toward oneself when one is thinking.

In other words, when I read something and hear myself think, "oh yeah, that sounds right", there is another part of my mind that thinks, "maybe not".

Critical thinking is precisely what could have spared us from all of that 'cultural marxism' you mentioned, or at least, to do it in a way that is... constructive.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#78

Post by munificent »

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 we'll solve it the same way we solved similar transitions when text and image faking became easy: provenance.

For many years now, most have understood that you can't take text and images as truth because they can easily be simulated or modified. In other words, the media itself is not self-verifying. Instead, we rely on knowing where a piece of media came from, and we associate truth value with those institutions. (Of course, people disagree on which institutions to trust, but that's a separate issue.)

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#79

Post by _tom_ »

wongarsu wrote: post #53
cameronh90 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Once you remix it, it's no longer reliable. So, you don't want it signed if it's modified.
Post reply on HN