Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras) • Hacker News Board

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#331

Post by ethanbond » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 6:06 PM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #315

ethanbond wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Videos are considered one of the more authoritative sources of factual information. E.g. Imagine how disruptive it’d be if a deepfake of Biden announcing support for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine were to circulate during those first hours of the invasion? Sure, there are other communications channels that would be able to dispute the authenticity of that video, but would those channels be as fast and as (apparently) au…

Why weren't people this concerned about the existence of photoshop? To this day people continue to try to fool and manipulate others by using it. You don't even need video or photos to trick someone. Plenty of people lie in text, but text editors aren't considered dangerous tools. People have been aware that lies can be typed for as long as we've had typing, but it still works. The fact that it still works a lot of t…

Really really knocking down these straw men one by one eh? Anyway, people do complain about Photoshopping, e.g. the psychological effects of digitally-generated beauty standards. No, photography isn't broken, but yes there is less trust in what a photograph is saying. No, this won't "break" video, whatever that means, but yes of course it will mean people will be less trusting of video.

No one said it'll destroy civilization, don't worry.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#332

Post by cowpig » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 7:35 PM UTC

giorgiop wrote: post #293

cowpig wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind releasing some footage of your face and your personal information? It would be a nice gesture to say "I am as much at risk of the consequences of my actions as the people I have chosen to put at risk"

You can easily google me.

Thanks not what I meant.

Are you not worried about the conflict of interest inherent in providing offensive and defensive tools simultaneously?

If someone charged money for minesweeping and simultaneously gave out mines I think that would be a fairly clear problem. I think it's a good metaphor because it captures both the conflict of interest and large potential for collateral damage.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#333

Post by madrox » Wed, Jun 08, 2022, 10:16 PM UTC

momojo wrote: post #279

madrox wrote: post #207

The moral lens people apply to deepfakes feels myopic to me. There are lots of tools that have been built that have arguably done more harm that no one talks about, like port scanning tools. Perhaps because the the negative consequences are so visually obvious and require few intuitive leaps.

> Perhaps because the the negative consequences are so visually obvious and require few intuitive leaps. Exactly this. At some point it's not feasible to calculate the impact of a technology's trickle down. Unless the impact is large enough. I'm not surprised people have such a viscerally moral reaction to deepfakes. > There are lots of tools that have been built that have arguably done more harm that no one talks ab…

I agree with everything you've said.

I suspect this also applies to many criticisms of crypto and NFTs as bad for the environment. The impact is simply easy to calculate...not outsized to other industries. We certainly don't evaluate, say, the video game industry based on its environmental impact in the same way.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#334

Post by ciceryadam » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 5:51 PM UTC

Vecr wrote: post #312

mavhc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as well as not trusting that video of someone is really that person, I choose to live far away from places where anyone can get a gun

Where anyone can get a gun? If you live in the middle of nowhere, lots of people around you will have guns (though they could be dozens of miles away in the best case), and obviously where there are more people the police can get guns, or call up the military if they can't for some reason (what country is that though?)

Most UK police officers don't have a gun:

An authorised firearms officer (AFO) is a British police officer who is authorised, and has been trained, to carry and use firearms. The designation is significant because in the United Kingdom most police officers do not routinely carry firearms, although they can be equipped with tasers. In 2019/20 fiscal year, there were 19,372 police operations throughout England and Wales in which the deployment of firearms was authorised and 6,518 firearms officers, 4.9% of the 132,467 active FTE officers. Following the November 2015 Paris attacks it was decided to significantly increase the numbers of armed officers, particularly in London.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorised_firearms_officer

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#335

Post by nurettin » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 5:55 AM UTC

Planktonne wrote: post #7

> Authors and contributing developers assume no liability and are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by the use of this program. Anything that can be created, will be created. However, that doesn't free you from all moral culpability. If you create something, make it freely accessible and easy to use, then I think you are partly responsible for its misuse. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have created…

It is not a moral statement, just lawbabble.

Re: Deepfake Offensive Toolkit (real-time deepfakes for virtual cameras)

#336

Post by mensetmanusman » Fri, Jun 10, 2022, 12:47 PM UTC

trasz wrote: post #267

mensetmanusman wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is a contemplation of free will, not sure if contemplating that is like being on acid :)

Religion claims that certain things are true when they contradict observable reality. There's no fundamental difference between claimed gods and deepfaked ones.

Many of the claims of religion can’t be contradicted by observed reality because they are pointing to things beyond the observable (ie non-Falsifiable, like the proposed existence of a multiverse).

For example, religion claims you have free well. For a materialist, any interesting definition of free will is impossible, because we are made of quantum particles with defined statistical behavior.

Of course, we cannot prove or disprove the existence of free will in other people either…