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

Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 182 posts

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#131

Post by pc86 »

canada_dry wrote: post #58

Deep fakes are yet another prime example of how the writing is on the wall (i.e. it's clear that this technology can/will be used for nefarious purposes - esp. by our enemies) and yet mitigations - through regulation and enhanced standards - won't be pursued until long after the horses have left the barn. I don't know how/what form this should take, but an older analogy might be how colour photocopier manufacturers i…

This comment is so egregiously out of touch I hesitate to even respond at all, let alone to do so civilly, however in the interest of discussion I'm going to try to.

Which "enemy" do you envision would use deep fakes for a nefarious purpose, yet will stop short once they realize there are - gasp! - regulations around them? And as far as I'm aware, at least in the United States, there are no regulations requiring the use of microdots in printers or copiers, they're done of the manufacturers' own accord to aid law enforcement.

The idea that we should have ill-informed, knee-jerk regulations in reaction to every mildly upsetting technological fad is antithetical to everything the vast majority of technologists believe in and stand for.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#132

Post by zentiggr »

alpaca128 wrote: post #89
canada_dry wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another recent example where regulations were (relatively) quick to address some new tech/gadget: drones. It was recognized by law makers that drones could be used for nefarious purposes and needed some form of regulation. I'm not saying that drone registration thwarts illegal use, but at least something was done by regulators.

That drones could be used for nefarious purposes was kind of obvious after years of deadly US drone strikes. That didn't seem to tip off regulators, however. Not until anyone could buy drones capable of carrying heavy cameras or other equipment anywhere. Either way these regulations don't help much when people just don't care, as can be seen with all the drones flying too close to airports.

Pretty sure nobody was going to buying surplus/refurb Predators and flying them around the neighborhood.

When the recreational/commercial models got range and mass enough to get in the way of aircraft, that's when the first round of "whoa!" kicked in.

Still going to take more work to figure out reasonable controls.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#133

Post by bduerst »

bowmessage wrote: post #123
zaphod420 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

kind of... you can create a hash of the video, and store the hash on a blockchain. Then when viewing the video in the future, you can check it's hash and compare it to the one stored on chain to be sure the video wasn't tampered with.

But then you need to establish that the hash was posted on the chain by a trusted source, too.

And ensure that they weren't hacked, etc. Then you need another immutable blockchain to keep track of the bad posts on the first immutable blockchain.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#134

Post by TomMarius »

michaelt wrote: post #122
Reason077 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could blockchain give us a secure audit trail for digital video clips?

The blockchain could provide a timestamp, but it's hard to see how that would help. Every type of video authentication system I've ever heard proposed can be defeated by simply pointing a 'trusted' video camera at a screen playing a fake video.

In real world you could have an event that happened under five different, unaffiliated cameras. If all of these match up, that seems to be something a judge should consider.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#135

Post by TomMarius »

noelsusman wrote: post #121
ISL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deepfakes are readily understandable as a problem for politicians. Politicians are experts in public messaging; this technology has the ability to alter previously-immutable messages.

We've had the ability to make convincing fake videos for a long time. There are whole industries devoted to the task.

Yeah but it definitely never was this accessible.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#136

Post by bduerst »

mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #108
ouid wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not criticizing the New York Post for being too indie. I'm criticizing them for being profoundly untrustworthy.

Can you provide examples?

They have a string of controversies like most news organizations, but I think they may be referring to the fact it is owned by News Corp, which is run by Rupert Murdoch who is notorious for companies like Fox News.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#137

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

noelsusman wrote: post #119
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would honestly love to link to a trusted MSM report, but these outlets have been burying Epstein stories[1]. It's awful. 1. https://www.newsweek.com/abc-jeffrey-epstein-story-amy-robac...

The New York Post story you linked is just a write up of original reporting done by CBS. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-accuser-maria-f...

That article is from nov 18th versus 5th?

Besides, for credibility they should have been writing about the obvious problems with Epstein, and everyone but fringe outlets were basically silent over the last decade(s), and in some cases complicit (abc news).

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#138

Post by bduerst »

ISL wrote: post #48
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #22

I find it amusing that Congress has suddenly become so interested in the dangers of deep fakes. When they started going on and on about the dangers I thought “why is this dude so worried?”. Then of course the Epstein stuff becomes news[1] months later and the cynical part of me can’t help but think they’re looking for a defense if they ever partied at his island or ranch. 1. https://nypost.com/2019/11/18/jeffrey-epst…

Deepfakes are readily understandable as a problem for politicians. Politicians are experts in public messaging; this technology has the ability to alter previously-immutable messages.

Why are deepfakes now a huge problem, or any worse than photoshop? This technology has existed for decades.

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#139

Post by friendlybus »

bduerst wrote: post #138
ISL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deepfakes are readily understandable as a problem for politicians. Politicians are experts in public messaging; this technology has the ability to alter previously-immutable messages.

Why are deepfakes now a huge problem, or any worse than photoshop? This technology has existed for decades.

Video used to be the holy grail for 'that's real'. There's a realpolitik side to some american politics where if the traditional international order gets reshuffled they'd be happy to prove international misbehaviour with video footage and then use that as evidence for escalation. Also in the justice system video footage is seen as good as gold.

The credibility of still footage has dropped before. I don't know where that leaves us for authentic media...

Re: Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life

#140

Post by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 »

bduerst wrote: post #138
ISL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deepfakes are readily understandable as a problem for politicians. Politicians are experts in public messaging; this technology has the ability to alter previously-immutable messages.

Why are deepfakes now a huge problem, or any worse than photoshop? This technology has existed for decades.

Also, don’t courts have pretty strict chain of custody rules for anything submitted as “evidence”?
Post reply on HN