231–240 of 308 posts
Does Zelenskyy have a public-private key pair he can use to digitally sign videos which are to be uploaded to the internet?
I doubt the public targeted by this video knows what a key pair is, let alone how to use one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For him the deep fakes will be used to make considerate and respectful comments, while the real videos will be the outrageous ones :-)
That might be the best way to make him do something. When he realizes that people think the fake video makes sense, he'll claim the video was real out of spite and start defending a reasonable position.
Interestingly Zelensky might be easier to deepfake than other world leaders because there's more footage and a wider variety of facial expressions to train on due to his acting career
the video was pretty obviously fake though imo. i saw more real deepfakes 5 years ago
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I always find it interesting to watch the trickle down of news I find here on HN. I live in a very, very, very conservative part of the US. It always goes the same; see fake thing called out for being fake on HN. One week later, hear rumblings related to the fake thing in my community. One week after that, hear people openly talking about how that fake thing is true, but Google/MSM don't want you to hear about it.…
> The ironic thing is many of the rank-and-file of those people think that distrust gives them greater access to the truth, when in reality it just makes them easier to lie to. Care to elaborate? Intuitively what you're saying sounds plausible, but not why that would be the case.
(ii) if you can't believe mainstream media, it's hard to search for information that might contradict $radicaltheory, never mind trust someone else's thoroughly researched and sourced one. So even if it's a pretty wild theory that lots of other stuff seems to contradict and very little seems to corroborate, how can we be sure it isn't a coverup. Scepticism about well established facts leads to agnosticism about the veracity of well-established fiction.
(iii)"if you tell people this and they laugh at you and say it's ridiculous it's because they're the credulous idiots who believe anything they read in certain sources" is a very powerful meme.
(iv) people who don't believe in certain sources still tend to want to get stuff they can believe in from somewhere, and the average website that concurs that MSM is not to be trusted and embraces the meme that its reader base are the true freethinking sceptics publishes considerably more fake news and terrible takes than the mainstream media
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true for now, but eventually, as the technology progresses, it will take very little training data to create deepfakes of anyone unfortunately. Probably just a minute or two of video.
Random question: Does deepfake software build a 3D model of the faces involved?
The quality on this is really awful. Lighting mismatch on the neck, no atmospheric effects, voice sounds robotic, very little movement and it’s unnatural. It’s not even a useful PoC. It’s more like a meme. I think if it actually got some traction in mainstream media - like Marina Ovsyannikova’s fake Twitter account which was quoted by journos, then you could call it a legitimate first.
I don’t know, honestly I felt the opposite way, maybe because I’m not Ukrainian and it’s not my native language. But I found the level of deep fake we can achieve nowadays truly scary. Even if it was a shoddy job, I feel like that’s enough to convince a lot of people, or at least stir confusion
I always find it interesting to watch the trickle down of news I find here on HN. I live in a very, very, very conservative part of the US. It always goes the same; see fake thing called out for being fake on HN. One week later, hear rumblings related to the fake thing in my community. One week after that, hear people openly talking about how that fake thing is true, but Google/MSM don't want you to hear about it. Su…
Whenever I stumble into a political conversation with someone who prefers to live in an alternate news reality, I find it effective to not argue back at them, but rather out-flank them: inform them that not only are they correct, but also I read that insert-like-minded-improvised-obviously-ridiculous-nonsense-here and say it with all sincerity ... and then let them respond with "Well ... I'm not sure about that ..."…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That demonizing started way before the 2016 lead-up; until Obama came into the foreground she was also a clear front-runner for the 2008 election, so the machine was targeting her even then. I've noted this before, but being in the public eye for too long tends to be really bad news for presidential hopefuls in the US (Biden being the exception that proves the rule in that he eked out a win against a wildly unpopular…
"Wildly unpopular"? Maybe in the corporate and media world, but even despite that, he nearly won re-election. You can credibly attribute plenty of negative characteristics to Trump, but "nobody likes him" isn't one of them.
The idea could also be to first post something obviously fake, in order to make everyone think, that their deep fake video tech is not addvanced enough to create really good fakes. Later they post something, where they put in maximum effort to make it seem real, having people think back to the previous fake and think: "Oh but this looks real and they are not able to produce better deep fakes than that other video."