Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

old.reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#61

Post by flohofwoe »

tgv wrote: post #59
flohofwoe wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe people will just start requiring more evidence that something actually happened instead of believing everything they find on Tiktok (or the wider internet), which would actually be a good thing.

Another head-in-the-sand answer with some vaguely related talking points that are utterly unbelievable. Maybe pigs will fly tomorrow. Who can tell? I'll give you one decent example from recent popular media: Sandy Hooks. Alex Jones didn't even need a deep fake to convince people.

Before Photoshop, people believed in manipulated static images (as seen by all the fake UFO "photographs"). After Photoshop, it required "video evidence" to make people believe in UFOs again. Once it's possible to easily fake video material, the same will happen as with doctored static images. People will stop believing in video without additional evidence that the video is actually real.

PS: People being manipulated by propaganda is really old news. The only thing that the internet has changed is that all the village idiots who easily fall for propaganda discovered that each village has its idiot and they started to communicate and coordinate. But that's unrelated to deep fake and was already a problem before.

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#62

Post by bryanrasmussen »

flohofwoe wrote: post #61
tgv wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another head-in-the-sand answer with some vaguely related talking points that are utterly unbelievable. Maybe pigs will fly tomorrow. Who can tell? I'll give you one decent example from recent popular media: Sandy Hooks. Alex Jones didn't even need a deep fake to convince people.

Before Photoshop, people believed in manipulated static images (as seen by all the fake UFO "photographs"). After Photoshop, it required "video evidence" to make people believe in UFOs again. Once it's possible to easily fake video material, the same will happen as with doctored static images. People will stop believing in video without additional evidence that the video is actually real. PS: People being manipulated…

ok well once you don't believe in video evidence or photographic evidence then there is no evidence that could convince you of something other than actually experiencing it yourself. In which case people will just believe what they want to believe.

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#63

Post by rich_sasha »

Nursie wrote: post #18
rich_sasha wrote: post #16

I wonder if porn industry will first see widespread adoption of deepfakes or jump straight to AI-generated humping. "Hi PornGPT, make me a film with X actor and Y actor doing so-and-so, culminating after 5 minutes - I'm in a rush".

Deepfake celeb porn is already illegal in some countries, IIRC, after it hit the media a few years ago.

I get the impression legality comes second to profits in the porn industry.

AI becomes so commoditised so quickly. It doesn't feel like we are a long way from text-to-video available in open source. Then all it takes is someone with a big stash of training data to train it, and voila.

Deepfake porn seems like more of a cottage industry.

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#64

Post by bryanrasmussen »

autoexec wrote: post #46
hajhatten wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Video evidence may not be trusted as evidence in court in the future. Will we require something more perhaps? Or will the word of AI keen on spotting something's off be what we trust?

Has forensic analysis been defeated by a deep fake? At least in the courts cases won't depend on the jury being able to 'tell by the pixels' and instead experts will get called in. Whoever that ends up being, if they can do their job and authenticate a video at least as well as they already can with photoshops we should be fine. Photoshop didn't cause society to collapse and photoshop-for-video won't either.

>and instead experts will get called in.

the defense often cannot afford experts.

Also there is a long history of experts lying, in the U.S at least but I suppose elsewhere as well.

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#65

Post by flohofwoe »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #62
flohofwoe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before Photoshop, people believed in manipulated static images (as seen by all the fake UFO "photographs"). After Photoshop, it required "video evidence" to make people believe in UFOs again. Once it's possible to easily fake video material, the same will happen as with doctored static images. People will stop believing in video without additional evidence that the video is actually real. PS: People being manipulated…

ok well once you don't believe in video evidence or photographic evidence then there is no evidence that could convince you of something other than actually experiencing it yourself. In which case people will just believe what they want to believe.

Usually there are other witnesses, other video sources. The more material exists, the harder it is to make the fake believable. You have to consider the sources. Who published the video, what are their motivations, who pays them.

Really, that's "internet user 101", I can't believe we're having such a discussion on HN :)

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#66

Post by derbOac »

ctack wrote: post #39

My bold prediction. Please hold me to this in 2 years /s.. Some video storage service or ‘authentication service middleman’ is going to make a mint with blockchain authenticity proofing. They’ll provide a seal of authenticity that the feed being viewed came direct from a camera. Feed will be checked during viewing as well to verify its ‘camera direct’ state.

Maybe this is the application NFTs (with some tweaks) have been looking for.

Someone will figure out how to crack it though, or the possibility will be plausible enough, and then we'll be at zero again.

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#67

Post by autoexec »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #64
autoexec wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has forensic analysis been defeated by a deep fake? At least in the courts cases won't depend on the jury being able to 'tell by the pixels' and instead experts will get called in. Whoever that ends up being, if they can do their job and authenticate a video at least as well as they already can with photoshops we should be fine. Photoshop didn't cause society to collapse and photoshop-for-video won't either.

>and instead experts will get called in. the defense often cannot afford experts. Also there is a long history of experts lying, in the U.S at least but I suppose elsewhere as well.

That's kind of encouraging. The lying experts and underfunded defense attorneys out there didn't bring about the end of days with the appearance of photoshop, and it's unlikely that they will now either. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't try to fix those problems...

I'm already somewhat hopeful that if deepfakes can be reliably detected juries will be automatically skeptical of unauthenticated videos and prosecutors will view getting their videos authenticated as an easy way to strengthen their case. I already suspect close to every picture I see has been edited and altered somehow.

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#68

Post by hnbad »

pmayrgundter wrote: post #56
hnbad wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make as nobody is arguing there isn't a (black) market for it. The difference between the illegality of porn and of deepfaked porn is that the former is usually based on a purely moral argument (e.g. "porn is sinful" and allowing sinful behavior "corrupts people with sin", leading to more - and worse - sinful behavior) whereas the latter is based on a lack of consent. Consent…

With you there, to a point. It's ironic and revealing that nobody actually consents to a social contract then. Closest most come is voting, and perhaps that implicitly validates the laws. But that's not really consent. So maybe this consent assumption is not so strong!

Oh, I agree that states aren't consensual in practice, neither is capitalism. That's why I'm an anarchist.

But philosophically the justification for a state's existence is the mythical social contract and most modern states require some level of consent for contracts within their legal systems to be legitimate (e.g. can't be made under the legal definition of duress, which usually at least means a contract is invalid if the other party is literally holding a gun to your head).

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#69

Post by Radim »

autoexec wrote: post #52
closewith wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence can the average person verify?

Historically, the average person could verify very little. To this day I've never once seen China with my own eyes. Does it even exist? Probably... how do I know? We all decide on others we consider trustworthy enough for the context. If some major news org said they contacted Tom Cruise and asked him if the video was real and he said it wasn't him, then as an average person I'd probably believe them because I have a…

> or get called out on the lie

Get "called out" how, exactly?

With the distribution channels centralized, how do you call out a lie by a "major news org", if the gvt (Google, Youtube, FB, Twitter…) decide to play along and suppress your message?

The EU Commissar of Truth, Vera Jourova, announced that "the era of the Wild West for free speech is over". She also cited "gentlemen's agreement" with the "big boy" platforms where legislation is lacking for now. Chilling.

To the degree that the censorship machine fails, it fails for technical reasons, not for a lack of appetite.

A resigned shrug and "ultimately what do I care" is increasingly common. It might be a self-correcting problem, on the evolutionary scale.

> If someone posted a video of the president eating a live baby I'd probably be more skeptical of my sources.

Isn't that because you've lived a life grounded (mostly) in physical reality? With free access to (mostly) uncensored information?

We might be surprised what's considered "extraordinary" with respect to a "sceptical threshold" in the future, especially once the pre-internet generation dies out. And digital information with digital influencers (AI or not!) beholden to a few centralized platforms shaping the consensus reality.

Re: Deepfaked Tom Cruise and Paris Hilton by Metaphysic

#70

Post by alanfranz »

pocketarc wrote: post #8

Give it a couple more years to iron out the kinks and throw in more resources, and even fewer people may be able to spot anything off (I already cannot - even knowing that it's fake, there's no way I'd ever think "wow this is a fake video"). This is either going to send a shockwave to society in the trust department (i.e. we'll have to absolutely distrust everything and everyone will have to adapt immediately), or we…

or maybe we'll get back to living like 50-70 years ago, when there was minimal amount of video footage around. You trusted what you could see and touch.

It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Post reply on HN