Deepfake

kingtiger

I was just reading about Deepfake videos (and viewing a few :pac:)

This is a serious piece of tech that anyone can use, and is honestly slightly frightening to see how easy it is to use with any home PC

The software is still in it infancy and obviously will improve in the coming months

Will it be a case that we will not be able to believe anything we see in the near future?

here's an example that's not porn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hZOcmqWKzY

Hector Bellend

Name one media organisation that doesnt have an agenda?

McMurphy

here's an example that's not porn

Any examples that are?

seamus

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Any examples that are?

Google it.

I understand the potential appeal of stitching famous women into porn, but it's actually really underwhelming when you see it. Almost looks like taping a photo onto a blow-up doll.

And not because the technology is bad; it's actually incredible. But there's something deeply unappealing about it. YMMV.

kingtiger

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Any examples that are?

don't think that's allowed, but Reddit is a good place to start

seamus wrote: »

And not because the technology is bad; it's actually incredible. But there's something deeply unappealing about it. YMMV.

this is just starting, I presume when the algorithm gets refined it will become almost indistinguishable

then I fear for some women with revenge porn being a big misuse of this tech

circadian

Doesn't this use machine learning? I assume that means the more it's used and the more varied the source material uploaded then it will increase in quality.

All I've seen so far is some excellent Nicolas Cage edits.

seamus

kingtiger wrote: »

then I fear for some women with revenge porn being a big misuse of this tech

To a certain extent the issue of revenge porn, kind of becomes less relevant.

No matter what gets produced, the subject can legitimately just say that it's a fake and their ex is a sad, pathetic idiot.

The worst part about revenge porn is not the embarrassment, but the breach of trust. The subject took those photos and gave them over in confidence, because people knowing that you exposed yourself like that, is embarrassing.

If someone were to draw a photorealistic photo of you in the nip and put it up online, you might be a little bit embarrassed, but it says more about the person who made it, then it does about you. It doesn't reveal anything about you, because you didn't take the photo.

Same with this technology; people will no doubt find it a little bit unnerving and creepy, but there's no real breach of trust and it doesn't reflect badly on the subject of the photos.

kingtiger

yes Seamus but this isn't just pics of the person naked, you just need a few headshots and a porn scene from a random "actress"

then a well done video will end up on all the porn streaming sites within minutes

and imagine the person explaining that one at say a job interview

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

seamus wrote: »

Same with this technology; people will no doubt find it a little bit unnerving and creepy, but there's no real breach of trust and it doesn't reflect badly on the subject of the photos.

"Hey Gardai, I have a video recording of Seamus participating in child pornography."

It's totally fake and you were "deepfaked" into it but enjoy being dragged through the justice system.

MajorDon

kingtiger wrote: »

... when the algorithm gets refined it will become almost indistinguishable....

Then it's The Running Man all over again.

seamus

kingtiger wrote: »

and imagine the person explaining that one at say a job interview

"It's a fake that some saddo created".

Once it becomes mainstream, everything compromising can be assumed to be fake until proven otherwise. So there's no "explaining" it in an interview - the interviewer will happily accept that it's a fake.

What it will do is create the requirement for digital signing of original video so that the origin can be verified. Which tbh is way overdue anyway.

Thus your browser will be able to tell you, "This video could not be verified and may have been altered", or "This video has been verified as having been produced by Fox News Corporation on 12th December 2020".

Harry Palmr

I think I'm going off grid






















nah!

kingtiger

seamus wrote: »

What it will do is create the requirement for digital signing of original video so that the origin can be verified. Which tbh is way overdue anyway.

there has been talk of using blockchain to do this very thing, but this is a long is a long way away

I think you are being slightly naive with the repercussions of such abuse with this tech, simply saying that's fake might not cut it, the seed of doubt will already be planted

seamus

It's also worth remembering that this technology has been available for photographs for years, and the world has yet to collapse under an avalanche of fake revenge porn pictures and world leaders photographed taking part in child porn.

So this is impressive technology, but not something to lose your sh1t over.

kingtiger

seamus wrote: »

It's also worth remembering that this technology has been available for photographs for years, and the world has yet to collapse under an avalanche of fake revenge porn pictures and world leaders photographed taking part in child porn.

So this is impressive technology, but not something to lose your sh1t over.

but its not just Pics

its full motion video with full facial expressions that are very realistic if done right

MajorDon

kingtiger wrote: »

... very realistic if done right.

Nah, it's not that good. You have to squint for it to be convincing.

kingtiger

MajorDon wrote: »

Nah, it's not that good. You have to squint for it to be convincing.

for now, give it a couple of months

but saying that I have seen some that are very convincing

MajorDon

I can see I'm going to have to start using these fellas: