Deepfakes: MIT brings Nixon's Apollo disaster speech to life • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by dang » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 7:12 AM UTC

larnmar wrote: post #169

eutropia wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean states which are ruled democratically rather than by elites. This means that the implicit bias in a democratic media is that of serving the people and exposing truth rather than covering for corpo-fascists and state-sponsered terrorism. There's such a thing as genuinely good reporting and integrity in journalism (even in authoritarian states)- it just needs to also be free of coercion and aware of the frame of…

I was fourteen once too, kid. I know the world looks simple when you’re out there forming your very first political opinions, but it’s really not. The world isn’t some simple struggle between good guys and bad guys, it’s an incomprehensibly complicated overlap between lots of people acting in response to various incentives that they themselves don’t understand. I recommend keeping your mind open and your mouth shut a…

Personal attacks will get you banned again. Would you please review the site guidelines and stick to the rules?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#172

Post by philwelch » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #102

philwelch wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve had photographic deep fakes for decades now. How does this fundamentally change anything more than Photoshop already did?

"We've had computers for decades now. How does this fundamentally change anything more than the IBM 360 did?" -- investor being asked for funding in 1978 by a couple of hippies in Cupertino

Do you actually have a response or are you just being contemptuous and dismissive to amuse yourself at my expense?

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

#173

Post by philwelch » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 8:04 AM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #160

Jamwinner wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, Ford was already known for that behavior. The bar of legitimacy was low. The famous early nazi fakes; looping rows of tanks and troops to suggest more, was indeed effective, and nothing new. We have been in this space for nearly a century already.

"Video can be used to mislead" is nothing new, but I'll still argue that we're watching a very specific new door open. From the first days of high-fidelity video to the recent past, there has never been a time when someone could fake this type of content. Faking a clear, unbroken closeup of a recognizable person has never been a serious option before this. Even when Hollywood had likeness rights and massive budgets,…

It won’t be that difficult, if it’s a digital video that’s cryptographically signed with the White House’s private key.

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

#174

Post by Reason077 » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 12:30 PM UTC

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.

"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."

That's a good point. But I'm imagining situations where the camera itself is a reasonably secure device. For example, a city CCTV camera or a police body worn camera.

If a video stream can be securely (cryptographically) matched to a particular device, with an unforgeable (blockchain?) timestamp, it would increase confidence in video evidence presented in court, for example.

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

#175

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 9:52 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #172

CamperBob2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We've had computers for decades now. How does this fundamentally change anything more than the IBM 360 did?" -- investor being asked for funding in 1978 by a couple of hippies in Cupertino

Do you actually have a response or are you just being contemptuous and dismissive to amuse yourself at my expense?

Well, if you put it that way... :-P

It's well understood that quantity -- and availability to the masses -- has a quality all its own.

I do believe we're facing an arms race, in which purveyors of synthesized bullshit will likely fight the defenders of truth to a draw at best, and more likely win. No disrespect intended but I don't agree that your Photoshop analogy is valid.

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

#176

Post by CamperBob2 » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #173

Bartweiss wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Video can be used to mislead" is nothing new, but I'll still argue that we're watching a very specific new door open. From the first days of high-fidelity video to the recent past, there has never been a time when someone could fake this type of content. Faking a clear, unbroken closeup of a recognizable person has never been a serious option before this. Even when Hollywood had likeness rights and massive budgets,…

It won’t be that difficult, if it’s a digital video that’s cryptographically signed with the White House’s private key.

Most people believe whatever they see and hear. This turns out to be a hell of a business model.

The business model works on "most" people, but not all of them. You can't fight a Fox News with an Air America. It's been tried, more than once. When deepfake material comes to light at the expense of a Democratic president, rest assured, most people aren't going to bother demanding the White House's public key.

All they'll know is what they heard from the talking heads on their news channel of choice: "Well, I don't know, Sean, but a lot of people are saying it's real."

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

#177

Post by philwelch » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #176

philwelch wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won’t be that difficult, if it’s a digital video that’s cryptographically signed with the White House’s private key.

Most people believe whatever they see and hear. This turns out to be a hell of a business model. The business model works on "most" people, but not all of them. You can't fight a Fox News with an Air America. It's been tried, more than once. When deepfake material comes to light at the expense of a Democratic president, rest assured, most people aren't going to bother demanding the White House's public key. All they'…

So why don’t we have the same issue with Photoshopped images? It’s because everybody knows Photoshop exists and is skeptical about photographs. The more and more deep fakes get published—first as tech demos and then increasingly as jokes—the more people are going to adjust to how this works. Some people are going to be credulous but that’s just the human condition.

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

#178

Post by CamperBob2 » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 8:31 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #177

CamperBob2 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people believe whatever they see and hear. This turns out to be a hell of a business model. The business model works on "most" people, but not all of them. You can't fight a Fox News with an Air America. It's been tried, more than once. When deepfake material comes to light at the expense of a Democratic president, rest assured, most people aren't going to bother demanding the White House's public key. All they'…

So why don’t we have the same issue with Photoshopped images? It’s because everybody knows Photoshop exists and is skeptical about photographs. The more and more deep fakes get published—first as tech demos and then increasingly as jokes—the more people are going to adjust to how this works. Some people are going to be credulous but that’s just the human condition.

So why don’t we have the same issue with Photoshopped images?

We do. Even today, very little of what you see in media is entirely real. The alterations are hardly ever as overt as Trotskyites being airbrushed out of Party publicity photos, but that doesn't mean they aren't being done.

Maybe an African-American person ends up looking a little blacker than they really are if they're being accused of a crime, or a little whiter if they're running for office. Maybe they just sound a little more or less "ethnic" depending on whether the press wants them in office or in jail. Or a video is sped up and slowed down at just the right moments to turn a journalist's uncomfortable question into an unprofessional partisan attack.

IMHO we can expect more of these cognitive shenanigans as the technology improves. Manipulation will be performed not just on the subjects in question, but on the contexts in which they appear.

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

#179

Post by V-2 » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 10:45 AM UTC

omarchowdhury wrote: post #66

V-2 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I saw it with my own eyes" is inherently more convincing than "someone told me [in writing] how it is". It will be naturally harder for humans to reject false recordings as deceitful.

And one wonders how muddied the waters will become, actual videos may be discarded on accusation of being deepfakes!

I imagine that future society will develop some system of "truth certification"; networks distributing "seals of approval / authenticity".

It may become a very different world psychologically - just like the medieval people would be psychologically, largely incomprehensible to us.

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

#180

Post by Bartweiss » Mon, Nov 25, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #177

CamperBob2 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people believe whatever they see and hear. This turns out to be a hell of a business model. The business model works on "most" people, but not all of them. You can't fight a Fox News with an Air America. It's been tried, more than once. When deepfake material comes to light at the expense of a Democratic president, rest assured, most people aren't going to bother demanding the White House's public key. All they'…

So why don’t we have the same issue with Photoshopped images? It’s because everybody knows Photoshop exists and is skeptical about photographs. The more and more deep fakes get published—first as tech demos and then increasingly as jokes—the more people are going to adjust to how this works. Some people are going to be credulous but that’s just the human condition.

Yep, this is my reaction too. People are conflating two fundamentally different problems. One is having the ability to know what's real, the other is actually knowing.

Ability is what interests me most. Faking this sort of content - a continuous, closeup shot of the President saying something - has basically never been possible before. If a total stranger had showed you this video in 1969, it would have been clearly authentic. Not clearly truthful, you wouldn't trust that the landing had really failed as opposed to e.g. Nixon recording speeches for both outcomes. But you could be pretty sure it wasn't an imposter or an edit or anything except the real Nixon on camera.

Deepfakes challenge that ability, but I don't think they'll destroy it. Official sources will sign video. Untrusted sources will use verified timestamping and other methods to prove specific claims about their footage.

Actual knowledge, on the other hand, can't be destroyed by deepfakes because we already don't have it. There are a hundred ways to lie to people - with photoshopped images, deceptive editing, or just lying and having people trust that the evidence exists somewhere. People who aren't easily fooled today will become skeptical about video footage too. People who are easily fooled are already fooled, have been fooled since before photography straight through to the present, and will just stay that way.

"Banning political deepfakes" or anything similar is not just a case of closing the barn door after the horses have left, but without ever getting the horses into the barn.