Live data from Hacker News

Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

theverge.com

11–20 of 78 posts

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#11

> It's a time when we need to rely on trusted news sources That's the rub, isn't it? Who's a "trusted" new source? All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Lots of people therefore consider some fly-by-night facebook feed that says what the majors don't to be more "trusted" in response. We shouldn't "rely" on single points of perceived trust, especially in this massive for-profit, for-po…

> All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation.

Bunching those together feels disingenuous. Do the New York Times, Washington Post, WSJ, etc etc all have their own perspectives? Sure. That's bias, to an extent. But when have they been corrupt? When have they manipulated their reporting?

To put it simply: if a reputable outlet was caught modifying a video of Trump to put words in his mouth it would be a publication-ending scandal. The same is not the case for Infowars. I agree with you that everyone should have as diverse a media diet as they can, but suggesting that every company is as bad as each other is simply inaccurate.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#12

> It's a time when we need to rely on trusted news sources That's the rub, isn't it? Who's a "trusted" new source? All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Lots of people therefore consider some fly-by-night facebook feed that says what the majors don't to be more "trusted" in response. We shouldn't "rely" on single points of perceived trust, especially in this massive for-profit, for-po…

The problem lies in the motive. News organizations are (not surprisingly) entirely motivated by profit. Breaking even is not enough. Doing well is not enough. Improving profit drastically quarter over quarter is the goal.

To do that, you cannot simply "provide news" anymore. You need conflict. You need confirmation bias. You need to create a wild, screaming echo chamber that induces panic and fear. You need conflict, even if you have to fudge the details to get it. You need to focus on some things and ignore others to increase it.

It's no longer a partisan issue. I'm 40 years old. I remember when you had to really pay attention to catch bias in the news. Do this yourself: go back and look at newsreels from the 80s and 90s. It's almost surreal. They were still biased, but presented information in a factual manner and then tossed in some emotional stuff. Many of them even... showed both sides of the argument. It's weird to watch now.

A news network simply cannot run with this format in 2018. Fox News was the leader, they were using bias, fearmongering, and propaganda almost from the start. They enjoyed very high ratings because of it. Now the other side has caught up. Because they had to.

It's a mess, but one thing is for sure: we can't trust any of them anymore. Not 100%.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#13
That sounds like a really bad Obama impersonator. The video is OK but still obviously fake.

If you look at the progression of film CGI, with its persistent flaws despite massive budgets, there's no reason to suspect that indistinguishable fakes are coming any time soon.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#15

> It's a time when we need to rely on trusted news sources That's the rub, isn't it? Who's a "trusted" new source? All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Lots of people therefore consider some fly-by-night facebook feed that says what the majors don't to be more "trusted" in response. We shouldn't "rely" on single points of perceived trust, especially in this massive for-profit, for-po…

You're right that it's for profit and sensationalism, but it's worse than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suFzznCHjko

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#16
I'm a little disappointed that it took this long for people to get over the 'OMG celebrity porno' thing about deepfakes to actually start dealing with the real potential consequences. Deepfakes open up an amazingly large list of questions, from the mundane to the truly challenging. That someone will see imagery that fulfills a sexual fantasy is, by far, one of the most trite and harmless possible uses of this technology.

Realtime video synthesis has been around for awhile. I recall reading in 1999 that if you watched the ball drop on New Years Eve, the advertisements on the buildings you see won't be the advertisements that are actually present in real life. They were being replaced on the fly with different ads. Now, it's basically possible to replace people. Everywhere that people appear. And this isn't something we can deal with simply by going off of gut reaction and intuition, it really raises significant questions.

Who will be the first politician to use a younger version of themselves to promote themselves? Which celebrity will be first to replace not the face, but their body, in film to make themselves more attractive? Which movie studio will be first to film a movie using cheap performers and then re-use the right they have to a major celebrities likeness by just faking them into it? Or maybe they'll only bring in the actual celebrity for close shots?

This can be done on commodity hardware, and will only get easier. It will be used for schoolyard bullying, for amazingly uplifting and important artistic works, for debasement and aggrandizement. It's one of these things that we've got to do some thinking about as a society.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#17
post #13

That sounds like a really bad Obama impersonator. The video is OK but still obviously fake. If you look at the progression of film CGI, with its persistent flaws despite massive budgets, there's no reason to suspect that indistinguishable fakes are coming any time soon.

Sure, the video is obviously fake. But it's also good enough that it's not "obvious" to anyone who doesn't remember Obama's exact face and voice, and it's good enough that it gives plausibility to anyone calling a real video with slightly distorted audio or video a fake!

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#19
I don't know, for this type of fake video, you don't even need a face mapping or a voice mapping implemented by deep learning.

Just take any random Barack Obama video which we have plenty of, use similar male voice, or copy&paste convenient Obama's voice without context, and some people believe it.

It won't fool everybody but that is not that important. Some people still believe it and act accordingly(Pizzagate conspiracy theory) and that's more than enough to achieve the malicious intent.

Re: Fake Barack Obama delivers a PSA about “deep fakes” using a deep fake video

#20
post #11

> It's a time when we need to rely on trusted news sources That's the rub, isn't it? Who's a "trusted" new source? All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Lots of people therefore consider some fly-by-night facebook feed that says what the majors don't to be more "trusted" in response. We shouldn't "rely" on single points of perceived trust, especially in this massive for-profit, for-po…

> All the major players have shown biases, corruption, and manipulation. Bunching those together feels disingenuous. Do the New York Times, Washington Post, WSJ, etc etc all have their own perspectives? Sure. That's bias, to an extent. But when have they been corrupt? When have they manipulated their reporting? To put it simply: if a reputable outlet was caught modifying a video of Trump to put words in his mouth it…

The magnitude of incorrectness/malicousness in reporting is irrelevant to this: No single source will leave you with a broadly-informed understanding, even if by simple way of time/space constraints in their output.

Even the simplest of biases affects editorial decisions as to which content to prefer over others. Omissions of viewpoints or of counterpoint example stories means you don't get the big picture, even without some massive media scandal. People scream distrust at media channels for leaving out information they view as critical, and go elsewhere to find those details (for better or worse).

Post reply on HN