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

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#131

Post by beisner »

pahn wrote: post #86
beisner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there are information theoretic ways to certify that media is genuine, if you assume trust at least somewhere in the process. Basically just cryptographic signing. For instance, a camera sensor could be designed such that every image that is captured on the sensor gets signed by the sensor at the hardware level, with a certificate that is embedded by the manufacturer. Then any video released could be verified agai…

I'll probably get downvoted into oblivion for mentioning blockchain tech, but this might at least help, maybe not in its current form but... I did not follow that project, but there do exist some concepts in this direction, e.g. this: https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/12/numbers-protocols-blockcha...

The idea of having a public record that attests to when an event happened is interesting, although not sure it has to be blockchain for it to be useful.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#132

Post by fxtentacle »

jayd16 wrote: post #123
fxtentacle wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real humans are behind the bots. Yes, but those humans are usually anonymous and on the other side of the planet which makes them feel safe. And that allows them to be evil without repercussions. Back in the days, I went to LAN parties. If someone spotted a cheater, they would gang up with their friends and literally throw the offender out of the building. That was a pretty reliable deterrent. But now with all game…

To argue that scams didn't exist or weren't a problem before the internet is pretty indefensible, no matter the anecdotes.

I was merely trying to argue that scams within a local community would be less severe than scams between strangers, because they are easier to punish and/or deter.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#133

Post by nix0n »

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...

That's not an AI problem, it's a concentration of wealth problem.

Giving that power to a person or group of people would be almost as bad.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#134

Post by whimsicalism »

VanillaCafe wrote: post #68
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…

The real problem isn't the veracity of the information, but the consensus protocol we use to agree on what's true. Before the internet, we were more likely to debate with their neighbors to come to an understanding. Now, with the large bubbles we can find ourselves in, afforded by the internet social media, we can find a community to agree on anything, true or not. It's that lack of challenge that allows false inform…

I would be curious if false information is actually more common now. It seems like people regularly believed all sorts of false things not too long ago.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#135

Post by idontwantthis »

fleetwoodsnack wrote: post #24
idontwantthis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t bother me that much because evidence isn’t required to convince millions of people that a lie is true. We already know this. Why make fake evidence that could be debunked when you can just have no evidence instead?

Different instruments can be used to capture different segments of the population. You’re right there are gullible people who are more likely to believe things with limited or no evidence. But it isn’t necessarily about the most impressionable people, nor is it about installing sincerely held beliefs. Instead, what may be a cause for concern is simply the installation of doubt in an otherwise reasonable person becaus…

Think about how few people believe in Bigfoot when video, photographs, footprints, eye witness testimony all exist.

Think about how many people believe in Jesus without any of that physical evidence.

If anything, the physical evidence turns most people off. And I'd argue that most Bigfooters don't even believe in the physical evidence, but use it as a tool to hopelessly attempt to convince other people to believe in what they already believe is true.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#136

Post by notahacker »

bogwog wrote: post #31
beisner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there are information theoretic ways to certify that media is genuine, if you assume trust at least somewhere in the process. Basically just cryptographic signing. For instance, a camera sensor could be designed such that every image that is captured on the sensor gets signed by the sensor at the hardware level, with a certificate that is embedded by the manufacturer. Then any video released could be verified agai…

That's helpful for the legal system, but it's not going to help for attacks designed to cause mass panic/unrest/revolts. If another US president wants to attempt a coup, it'll be much more successful if they're competent and determined enough to produce deepfakes that support their narrative. The only way to prevent stuff like that is to educate the public and teach people how important it is to be skeptical of anyth…

US Presidents have had the ability to make false claims based on video of something completely different, create material using actors and/or compromised communications, stage events or use testimony that information has been obtained via secret channels from appointees heading up agencies whose job it is to obtain information via secret channels for a long time now.

If anything, recent events suggests the opposite: deepfakes can't be that much of a game changer when an election candidate doesn't even have to try to manufacture evidence to get half the people who voted for him to believe his most outlandish claims.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#137

Post by RobertRoberts »

mcphage wrote: post #127
RobertRoberts wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asked "What are we going to do about Ukraine!?" And I said, "It's a civil war that's been going on for almost 10 years, what is different now?" and their response was "what? I'd never heard that." And I added, "In 2014 there was an overthrow of an elected president there and it started the war." Blank stares. I have a friend who traveled to Europe regularly for tech training, including Ukraine, and he was surpr…

> what is different now? Um. Is this a serious question?

Yes, I didn't know there was an invasion when asked about Ukraine, but I knew about the past history. (some at least)

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#138

Post by RobertRoberts »

HyperSane wrote: post #116
RobertRoberts wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was asked "What are we going to do about Ukraine!?" And I said, "It's a civil war that's been going on for almost 10 years, what is different now?" and their response was "what? I'd never heard that." And I added, "In 2014 there was an overthrow of an elected president there and it started the war." Blank stares. I have a friend who traveled to Europe regularly for tech training, including Ukraine, and he was surpr…

The president that lost power in 2014, Viktor Yanukovych, was a Russian puppet who refused to sign the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement in favor of closer ties to Russa. The Ukrainian parliament voted to remove him from office by 328 to 0. He then fled to Russia.

See this is the problem. While I follow plenty of international news, I didn't know this.

There is often times just too much to know to fully understand a situation. So how can anyone form a valid opinion?

As a follow up, was the election of Victor Yanukovych lawful? If not, then why not point out he was a puppet from a manipulated election? That would be worth a coupe, but not because you disagree with his politics, that's just insanity. Look what Trump believed and supported, we didn't start civil war because Trump wouldn't sign a treaty and he was accused of being a Russian puppet too. There is just more to this story than you are letting on.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#139

Post by pfisherman »

azinman2 wrote: post #130
pfisherman wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that people will adapt. Humans are very clever and have been evolutionarily successful because of the ability to adapt to a wide range of environments. Think about how devastatingly effective print, radio, and television propaganda at the time each medium was widely adopted compared to how effective they are now. They still work, but for the most part people have caught on to the game and adjusted their cogni…

I think you’re underestimating the power of cognitive biases and violence from those who only believe the information that want to hear.

I think there are quite a few recent historical examples of this - WW2, US invasion of Iraq, Russian Invasion of Ukraine, etc.

However there is a price to pay for operating on beliefs that do not align with reality. It’s why almost all organizations engage in some form of intelligence gathering. Those who are at an information disadvantage get weeded out.

Philip K Dick has a great quote “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#140

Post by corrral »

fartcannon wrote: post #34
fxtentacle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we'll go back to trusting local experts that you can meet in person to confirm that they are not a bot. Because anything online will be known to be untrustworthy. Most blogs, chat groups and social media posts will be spam bots. And it'll be impossible for the average person to tell the difference between chatting with a bot and chatting with a human. But humans crave social connections and intimate physica…

I want to agree with you, deeply, but the number of people who fall for simple PR/advertising in today's world suggests otherwise. I think we'd have a chance if they taught PR tricks in schools starting at a young age. Or at minimum, if websites that aggregate news would identify sources that financially benefit from you believing what they're saying.

I've long thought that high school should require at least one course that I like to call "defense against the dark arts" (kids still dig Harry Potter, right? Hahaha).

The curriculum would mostly be reasoning, how to spot people lying with graphs and statistics, some rhetoric, and extensive coverage of Cialdini's Influence. The entire focus would be studying, and then learning to spot and resist, tricks, liars, and scam artists.

Post reply on HN