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

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#151

Post by weaksauce »

corrral wrote: post #140
fartcannon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a good thing to teach but I do think that there are a large number of people out there that just don't have the capacity to do that. By virtue of being on this forum you are likely in the top quartile or near it of the population in terms of intelligence for whatever good that metric is. There is a cognitive bias that everyone frames most people as more or less the same as the person sees themselves and for me, a pretty skeptical person, it's tough to view the world through the lens of someone less skeptical. (I think it's the false consensus bias)

> In the US, 14% of the adult population is at the "below basic" level for prose literacy; 12% are at the "below basic" level for document literacy, and 22% are at that level for quantitative literacy. Only 13% of the population is proficient in each of these three areas—able to compare viewpoints in two editorials; interpret a table about blood pressure, age, and physical activity; or compute and compare the cost per ounce of food items.

Maybe teaching those skills would increase that 13% but I am not sure by how much.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#152

Post by fartcannon »

weaksauce wrote: post #151
corrral wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a good thing to teach but I do think that there are a large number of people out there that just don't have the capacity to do that. By virtue of being on this forum you are likely in the top quartile or near it of the population in terms of intelligence for whatever good that metric is. There is a cognitive bias that everyone frames most people as more or less the same as the person sees themselves and for me…

A lot of the messages that are valuable exist as regular idioms that are pretty simple. 'Don't believe everything you read.' for example is only a few ideas away from 'the government, media and corporations are manipulating you for their benefit.'

One is probably generally considered good advice, the other is likely dismissed as conspiracy theory nonsense.

We probably need a few more simple ideas like for modern times. "Facebook profits most when they make you depressed" "Tiktok is exploiting your sexdrive to influence your personal politics" "Google is telling people what you masterbate too for money"

They'd have to be less direct of course. I guess one modern one is, "if it's free, you're the product". But that tragically overlooks the generosity of the FOSS community so I'm not a fan.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#153

Post by creakingstairs »

weaksauce wrote: post #151
corrral wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a good thing to teach but I do think that there are a large number of people out there that just don't have the capacity to do that. By virtue of being on this forum you are likely in the top quartile or near it of the population in terms of intelligence for whatever good that metric is. There is a cognitive bias that everyone frames most people as more or less the same as the person sees themselves and for me…

> > In the US, 14% of the adult population is at the "below basic" level for prose literacy; 12% are at the "below basic" level for document literacy, and 22% are at that level for quantitative literacy. Only 13% of the population is proficient in each of these three areas—able to compare viewpoints in two editorials; interpret a table about blood pressure, age, and physical activity; or compute and compare the cost per ounce of food items.

> Maybe teaching those skills would increase that 13% but I am not sure by how much.

It's a hard battle against status quo and bureaucratic institutions but I still think it's possible to reduce that by a lot. I'm willing to bet that a lot of those people are below basic because they weren't given chance to succeed due to child poverty, schools playing numbers game[1] and various other factors. We don't even have to add new curriculums. Just by getting the "basics" right, we can lift those numbers up.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Uonc7BEZ4g

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#154

Post by mcphage »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #137
mcphage wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

So you were asked something about a major current event, you're surprised that they don't know about what happened 10 years ago, and they're surprised you don't know about what's happening now. Blank stares all around, I guess.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#155

Post by wussboy »

fxtentacle wrote: post #16
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 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…

This is the outcome I see as well, and I think it is a good thing. Every form of communication beyond physical face to face will be completely untrustworthy. It will affect banking. Remote work. Dating. Clubs. Everything.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#156

Post by wussboy »

dools wrote: post #150
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…

So you’re predicting a return to Stone Age tribalism

Huh? How does that follow? Also, I’m not entirely sure we ever left Stone Age tribalism…

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#157

Post by FrostKiwi »

joeld42 wrote: post #144

Not sure about NeRF's impact on deepfakes specifically, but they are looking like a seismic shift in the graphics world. Even without the "neural" part, as a scene representation they are already having a huge impact, and will have implications everywhere. It feels almost like a new primitive is being discovered. Maybe I'm just getting caught up in all the hype, but I can't remember the last time I saw a topic with t…

> It feels almost like a new primitive is being discovered.

That's a really nice way of putting it. The impact on the field of computer graphics is tough to predict, but ohh my am I excited.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#158

Post by FrostKiwi »

Davonbon wrote: post #146

Each day technology becomes scarier, even if technology exists to detect deepfakes and all, and there are infinite methods to tell reality appart from digital images, it doesn't matter, because most people don't know about that, and it's not their fault, not everyone has to get into tech that deeply. However, technology being used to lie to people has always been a thing, think back to photoshop, you can also create…

> videos of ARMA 3 being used as war footage

I am genuinely disappointed in the public for falling for that.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#159

Post by mrandish »

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 guess I'm an outlier on this topic because I don't think deep fakes will continue to have significant societal impact after an initial disruptive period of perhaps a few years. During that time DFs will become so common that any impactful example will immediately be suspected and discounted by most people. Yes, there will always be those who choose to believe the unbelievable but the lunatic fringe already believe outlandish claims without the need for deep fakes, thus there will be little net change.

Re: NeRF: An eventual successor for deepfakes?

#160

Post by gadders »

dTal wrote: post #106
gadders wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> There are huge swathes of people who live in their own make-believe world, like those believing wholeheartedly that the 2020 election was stolen There are also those that wholeheartedly believe Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election, or that the Steele dossier was factual.

These are not equivalent. Russia did interfere, there were links between Trump and Russia, therefore there is circumstantial evidence that collusion occurred, sufficient to trigger a widely publicized investigation. The allegations of election fraud in 2020 however are 100% alternate universe yarns spun for political gain with no basis in fact whatsoever.

Russia may have interfered but I would imagine it does every year to sew what they percieve to be maximum discord. There are no links between Trump and Russia, and the Mueller and subsequent investigations proved that. Recent trials also proved that the "server links" to Russia from Trump Towers originated with the Hillary campaign.

In the 2020 election, plenty of rules were changed to favour postal votes and vote harvesting. Was it sufficient to change the results? No idea. Did it definitely occur? Yes.

Post reply on HN