21–30 of 94 posts
This seems to have a glaring flaw in that a fake AI generated person could have a real-world doppelganger, which a tyrannical government could mistakenly arrest, or worse.
This seems to have a glaring flaw in that a fake AI generated person could have a real-world doppelganger, which a tyrannical government could mistakenly arrest, or worse.
A "glaring flaw" because of some extreme and unlikely scenario? Why would governments be using AI modified content to look for people to arrest? Is this really a serious risk to dissuade using it? Seems pretty unlikely that it simultaneously a) exclusively be used as the source + b) actually matches someone IRL.
This seems to have a glaring flaw in that a fake AI generated person could have a real-world doppelganger, which a tyrannical government could mistakenly arrest, or worse.
Can anyone provide an alternative source please? I've done a quick search and can't find any other sources reporting on this apart from 2x New Scientist links which are both pay-walled (as is the single Internet Archive submission) so my b.s detector is in the red on this one. If in fact the BBC did do this (and that's a BIG if) that would be a huge story and a major breach of the BBC's editorial policies.
They often hide interviewees faces; this is just a different method. As long as they disclosed this fact, I don't see what the problem is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "glaring flaw" because of some extreme and unlikely scenario? Why would governments be using AI modified content to look for people to arrest? Is this really a serious risk to dissuade using it? Seems pretty unlikely that it simultaneously a) exclusively be used as the source + b) actually matches someone IRL.
Are you serious? This is standard practice by security forces of any dictatorship.
It's an interesting hypothetical for sure but it's stretch to call it a glaring flaw. Not really any worse than people being misidentified in normal photos.
This makes absolutely no sense. If you wanted anonymity and were willing to go to these lengths, then the face could be fully fictitious and AI generated. Thereby placing no one in fear of government retribution. This only makes sense if you filmed actors and wanted to cover that glaring mistake in your propaganda, because you lack the necessary talent to actually render them with AI. I don't buy it. Not a fan of aut…
Can you elaborate what you mean by this? I don't understand how you're concluding that this only makes sense if it's to cover up propaganda. Using actors as surrogates to protect people is a common practice, and this is a logical step forward (albeit one I disagree with).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "glaring flaw" because of some extreme and unlikely scenario? Why would governments be using AI modified content to look for people to arrest? Is this really a serious risk to dissuade using it? Seems pretty unlikely that it simultaneously a) exclusively be used as the source + b) actually matches someone IRL.
> Why would governments be using this content to look for people to arrest? Why wouldn't oppressive regimes that are arresting dissidents review footage of dissidents that makes them look bad? Harassing reporters and their sources is a very common way to suppress information. Scientology does it, why wouldn't a government? https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2020/08/05/sciento...
This seems to have a glaring flaw in that a fake AI generated person could have a real-world doppelganger, which a tyrannical government could mistakenly arrest, or worse.
A face covering would cost nothing and achieve the end goal of hiding their identity.
Example of it used by Benn Jordan (aka, The Flashbulb) [2]