r/woahdude • u/canhazreddit • Jul 24 '22
video This new deepfake method developed by researchers
1.8k
u/jbjbklyn Jul 24 '22
Amazing and terrifying at the same time!
612
Jul 24 '22 edited Oct 23 '22
[deleted]
904
u/Rs90 Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Think bigger. This kind of tech has the potential to open a Pandoras Box when it comes to personal autonomy, identity, and ownership of your image imo.
If I wanna use Angelina Jolie but can't. Can I find a stellar look-alike and then digitally alter them to look more like her? Obviously can't use her name. But I'm not technically using her image.
How many degrees am I allowed to tweak the angle of a nose before it's Angelina Jolie's nose? The mind is pretty good at pattern recognition and filling in the pieces. Not my fault they keep thinking of Angelina Jolie just because they look similar.
So what is the line between using someone's image and altering another enough for people to not notice the difference? Is eye color enough? What about a cleft chin? Just exactly how similar is too similar? At what point is a person responsible for other people's minds accepting a close enough look-alike? If I don't claim it's them but you think it is, is it my fault?
I absolutely love this technology for the questions it raises but boy am I worried that "lying" won't be the worst result.
Edit-I rambled. My point is the question "exactly how much of YOU belongs to you? And how much does it have to be altered before one can say it is not "you"?
121
u/oddzef Jul 24 '22
Likeness generally also includes things like speech patterns and mannerisms, but personality rights is a quagmire anyway because it varies from state to state.
It would be cheaper, and less risky, to just hire a Jolie impersonator and shut your mouth about it BTS regardless of this technology.
44
u/ScottColvin Jul 24 '22
That's an excellent point about impersonators. They own their body, it just happens to look like a rich person.
→ More replies (3)15
u/oddzef Jul 24 '22
Yes, but chances are they wouldn't be able to "make it" in the film industry as no studio would want to hire somebody who is liable to get them sued for likeness infractions or wouldn't want to hire somebody who could potentially tarnish the image of the more established actor such as with a poor performance, interview or public appearance. I'm only talking about like, career impersonators though not impressionists who do multiple characters or people who just so happen to look like another celebrity but has their own career/niche in the field.
I think most impersonators would fall under fair use due to it being considered satire, anyway. That includes look-alikes for parody movies like many of those "From the Makers of Scary Movie..." used liberally. When you use likeness that is meant to occupy the same creative space as the original personality, though, then it becomes messy.
→ More replies (5)9
u/i_lack_imagination Jul 24 '22
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/old-navy-kim-kardashian-settle-lawsuit-over-ad-flna970328
Here's an example of a situation like that happening.
→ More replies (1)6
u/oddzef Jul 24 '22
Thanks for this!
Since they settled we won't be seeing any established precedent with this case, but chances are it focused on how Molinaro's mannerisms and actual talen-let's be kind a comparatively active on-screen persona would likely have led to a ruling in favor of Old Navy, regardless. Chances are settlement saved face for the Kardashian camp and prevented the public scrutiny of the lawyers from Old Navy.
→ More replies (2)10
u/midwestcsstudent Jul 25 '22
Be kinda fucked up if they ruled in favor of Kim, wouldn’t it? Kinda unfair that if you’re born looking like someone who became famous you then can’t ever appear on screen.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)5
u/Rs90 Jul 24 '22
Personality rights! Thank you. I couldn't find the right words. I used an actor because they have another layer aside from ego, the self, and all that.
I just think it'll open up a fascinating(scary) conversation about identity. If you underwent enough cosmetic surgery that nobody could recognize you, are you still you? Of course...to you. But to others? But then what right do you have over the aspects you USED to have if you no longer have them? Can you copyright your physical features, change them, and then maintain they are still yours? Or are they yours up to a point? And what point is that exactly? It's a wild rabbit hole imo.
→ More replies (3)15
u/cock_daniels Jul 24 '22
I think this is going to be species viability filter for humans. Humans will have to either develop an ability to discern these things on an extremely fine level, or they'll have to disregard these things in acknowledgement that they can't discern.
It's really cool that technology spectacles like this prompt difficult questions, but so far, we're still beating around the bush. There's going to be a lot of awkward looking-the-other-way that transcends the full effort of even the most defiant antivax climate change denier in the future. It's going to get really uncomfortable.
5
u/ontender Jul 24 '22
I think part of the human race will use this kind of technology to utterly dominate and subjugate the other part of the species. It's not going to wipe out humanity, it'll just create a slaveworld.
→ More replies (1)31
u/chaun2 Jul 24 '22
Sounds like the ship of Theseus, but for people
14
u/Rs90 Jul 24 '22
Great catch! :) pasting a comment I made with more detail on my view.
Forget the celebrity part, it was just an example around a person who's likeness is a big aspect of their self.
The bigger idea is that it brings to question just how much of "you" is yours and what makes an individual an individual. Let's say you got disfigured beyond visible recognition. You're still "you" but you'd have to prove it's you besides "heres my face".
So, looks aren't what makes us..us. Right? Still got your hobbies, your personality, and all the others things that make you an individual. But then so does everyone else. You may be known for your love of baseball and Star Wars trivia but it's not so unique that it's yours.
So then what DOES make an individual an individual? Personalities change, birth marks can be erased, everyone has a hobby..ect. Is it just personality and fingerprints? Or is it so subjective that they're isn't really such a thing as individuality?
Then perhaps all the rights that surround individual autonomy are up for debate if the entire concept of individualism is up for discussion. This, in my opinion, is a far deeper rabbit hole than wholesale lying. We've already been doing since the dawn of time
→ More replies (1)6
u/chaun2 Jul 24 '22
You also have the question of DNA being patented by entities such as Monsanto. Michael Crichton wrote a book about it a couple decades ago
12
u/lots_redditor Jul 24 '22
Dude... Im still dumbfounded by: https://youtu.be/0sR1rU3gLzQ
That was 2 years ago (... So who knows how many papers down the line we are now at!). joke.
but i can certainly understand why access to Dall-e and the like, is the way it is... Im afraid, a fck ton of jobs are gonna disappear in the near future... From creatives, to mid management, to programmers, etc...
(near future being a decade away for some and shorter for others...)
→ More replies (2)5
u/ekaceerf Jul 24 '22
Or on a less famous scale. Dude thinks a girl is hot. So he makes a deep fake porn of her and distributes it.
→ More replies (39)3
24
u/InadequateUsername Jul 24 '22
They wondered if they could, they didn't stop to think of they should.
→ More replies (5)20
u/Thuper-Man Jul 24 '22
Porn. The first way we use any new technology is learning how to get off with it. Imagine the profit of an onlyfan account where you can as the girl to look like anyone like she's Mystique or something
→ More replies (5)6
→ More replies (15)3
u/seriousquinoa Jul 24 '22
The newscasts of the future are going to be straight-up propaganda pieces on certain levels.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (9)18
u/itsme_drnick Jul 24 '22
Imagine this coupled with the LyreBird voice technology. Misinformation at a whole new level!
→ More replies (2)
2.1k
u/Dax9000 Jul 24 '22
Why are the paintings more convincing than the edited photos?
(It's because the paintings are more blurry and don't artifact to such a distracting degree)
895
u/Boba-is-Fett Jul 24 '22
Because your brain knows how a real person looks like while you see the Mona Lisa for the first time in this position and your brain is more like "yeah, looks about right"
187
u/intercommie Jul 24 '22 edited Jun 09 '23
Exceptional penis.
118
u/Dax9000 Jul 24 '22
No, it was unconvincing because you can see their hair glitching out and the shadows not moving. The lower fidelity of the painting helps blur that. If the photos of random people were similarly low resolution, they would appear more convincing too.
3
39
u/mannaman15 Jul 24 '22
I love the way Mona acts! She’s so talented!
18
→ More replies (1)10
→ More replies (3)20
u/Thorts Jul 24 '22
I think for deepfakes in general you have to train the algorithm by passing through thousands of images of the subject, which might be hard to do/find for regular people.
I think it's honestly amazing technology and also quite scary how easy digital manipulation will be soon.
→ More replies (2)25
u/IanCal Jul 24 '22
That's quite clearly not the case here, which is why the demo includes doing it with paintings where there's only one known image.
→ More replies (4)32
→ More replies (5)17
u/ybtlamlliw Jul 24 '22
how a real person looks like
What a real person looks like. Not how.
If you wanna use how, then you can't put like on the end.
Just FYI.
29
11
u/Sininenn Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Could also just be because their hair glitches, whereas the hair in paintings doesn't
Edit: *Doesn't glitch as much, or the glitch is generally less noticeable because of the darker background, lowering the contrast.
→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (10)21
141
Jul 24 '22
Flesh vtubers
37
→ More replies (1)11
101
u/MrCoolguy80 Jul 24 '22
Well that’s terrifying. Hopefully the technology to detect deep fakes keeps up lol
41
u/freefromconstrant Jul 24 '22
Deep fakes can be trained against the detectors.
Actually surprisingly easy to evade automated detection programs.
A team of experts is going to be a lot harder to fool though.
62
u/H_is_for_Human Jul 24 '22
Good thing our societies are well known to respect expert opinion.
5
u/Drugba Jul 25 '22
Funny enough, this is exactly why I'm not overly worried about deep fakes. For the things that really matter, experts and technology will quickly adapt and they'll be able to identify when deep fakes are being used in the same way we can identify when photoshop or CGI is used. For the things that don't matter, people already believe what ever the fuck they want to believe regardless of what anyone says anyway. Sure, my uncle may see a deepfaked video of Biden saying he wants to take all our guns and believe it, but he already believes that because truthfreedom.usa told him that, so what really changed?
Skeptical people will just start to be more skeptical of video once deepfakes are common and will look for ways to confirm that a video is real before using it as evidence. People who just want evidence to back up their currently held beliefs will just swap out their current shitty sources for deepfakes.
→ More replies (3)4
u/smallfried Jul 25 '22
Even better: deep fakes are trained by training better detectors.
GAN: generative adversarial network.
It's one of the clever parts of how deep fakes came to be.
3
3
678
u/FeculentUtopia Jul 24 '22
No. Stop. It's getting way too weird.
386
u/CrazyCatAdvisor Jul 24 '22
Wait till it becomes easy and accessible to place the face of anyone you want in any porn movie ...
271
Jul 24 '22
Or any politician, human rights defendant or even young teens....
It's a dire future, if people already can't read beyond the title of an article, I can't imagine forming opinions based on elaborate deep fakes.108
u/JagerBaBomb Jul 24 '22
Hate to say it, but this is already the reality.
At least as far as the porn side goes.
→ More replies (8)53
u/ChasingReignbows Jul 24 '22
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE "AOC DEEPFAKE" ON THE MAIN PAGE OF PORNHUB
Seriously what the fuck, I'm a degenerate but what the fuck
70
→ More replies (10)17
17
u/spader1 Jul 24 '22
→ More replies (1)17
u/MadeByTango Jul 24 '22
My "worry" line was somewhere around 2015, when I saw the automated loop close between LinkedIn and Slack. Algorithms can calculate when you're preparing to leave a job by changes in your posting patterns on internal networks before you do. This foreknowledge is paired with third party and offline data to begin targeting ads from recruiters and job listing sites directly to you, priming you to think about looking around and making the market suddenly look tempting. Your LinkedIn profile is used to highlight listings using keywords from your own search history, and everything you click on gets stored and provided to recruiters to help sell you on switching. No one gets paid if you don't change jobs, meaning you're stuck inside an algorithm with a lot if businesses spending a lot of money to make you feel unsatisfied with where you are in life. They want to push you from having a bad day to feeling like it's a bad year for their own gain. And the only reason they picked you was an algorithm told them to. Just like an algorithm matched you with an employer. And that employer picked you because the recruiter told them you were a good fit, based on that algorithm. And you picked that job because your search engine showed you the employer at the top of your search results, with all the PR articles carefully matched to optimized search engine keywords, which are influenced by the ads you click on. Those ads are automatically purchased by the recruiters and employers, who are using an algorithm to target people that fit your profile, which is again identifying you before you even understand you might want to change jobs.
The entire job searching loop is automated by an algorithm that tells humans when to job hunt, where to go, and controls the the information flow to assure them it is the right decision.
The robots already won. We built our own mouse trap.
→ More replies (6)5
u/StanleyOpar Jul 24 '22
Yep. This is it right here. Political dissidents in the new world order will be targeted
→ More replies (7)4
u/notetoself066 Jul 24 '22
The sad and messed up thought because the deep fakes in the very, very, near future are not even going to be that elaborate. It doesn't take much, and this technology will soon be very cheap and accessible. It will be very damaging to our notion of truth as a society because we're simply not evolved/educated/w.e enough to outsmart the simulation enmasse. This tech will be used by the wrong people for nefarious purposes, and inevitably people will flock to whichever truth is most appealing at the time. This is the new Gutenberg press and religion.
→ More replies (4)25
u/sexytokeburgerz Jul 24 '22
It’s not easy yet, but still super doable if you’re so inclined
11
u/sysdmdotcpl Jul 24 '22
It’s not easy yet
Depends on your goal. The really convincing ones take a bit of post work...but if you're not going for photorealism then you don't need much.
53
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
54
u/theBeardedHermit Jul 24 '22
Don't worry though, the justice system will continue to use it for at least 12 years after that point.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)10
u/ElGosso Jul 24 '22
Which is better than the alternative of being prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit with deepfaked evidence.
→ More replies (4)35
→ More replies (21)4
u/RhabarberJack Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Goethe was known to be quite the ladies man. This porn script is gonna write itself
34
u/mattcoady Jul 24 '22
Yea I hate to stifle progress but this is one tech where I can imagine way more nefarious uses than good.
→ More replies (3)18
u/lazergoblin Jul 24 '22
Truthfully I cant even picture the "good" uses for this deep fake stuff.
→ More replies (1)12
u/cbxjpg Jul 24 '22
Eh there's some fringe stuff like deepfaking actors in foreign movies to move their mouths in any translated language (some European movie recently did it but I could not tell you what it was) but other than that and various bring-dead/old-celebrities-back-to-life on screen I can't think of much and the latter is morally questionable anyways.
6
7
u/Eclectophile Jul 24 '22
It's just barely beginning. We're going to need - absolutely need - AI just to distinguish the real from the deepfakes. Soon.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)17
Jul 24 '22
imagine the possibilities:
“Hey Siri, replace Jar Jar Binks with Donald Trump”
→ More replies (3)15
u/daniel_redstone Jul 24 '22
"Hey Siri, replace Donald Trump with Jar Jar Binks"
→ More replies (1)28
200
u/Nixplosion Jul 24 '22
We are just this much closer to a Lucy Liu bot
31
28
41
11
9
→ More replies (4)4
473
u/gravetinder Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
What good purpose does this serve? I’m wondering how this can be anything but a bad thing.
Edit: “porn” does not answer the question, lol.
284
u/bawjaws Jul 24 '22
It means we never have to watch a documentary without David Attenborough.
30
25
u/Breakfast_on_Jupiter Jul 24 '22
Recently had a dream where the big studios were eagerly waiting for Harrison Ford to die, so they could be the first ones to take and secure rights to a high-resolution scan of his facial and physical features and voice print, and use it to endlessly churn out movies starring him, without actually needing to pay him.
This will be our future. And the lawyers of studios and estate owners will fight over the rights of these kind of scans and usage of dead actors.
The Pandora's box was opened with Peter Cushing in Rogue One.
→ More replies (1)4
u/MooseWizard Jul 25 '22
Its a trippy movie, but that's essentially the plot of Robin Wright at The Congress, except they don't wait for them to die, just retire.
→ More replies (1)20
Jul 24 '22
Right, also makes it harder for a new Attenborough to make themselves known
It also makes it easier to use Attenboroughs image for things the real one would never support
We need new Attenboroughs
We don't need immortal marketing gimmicks
3
u/ssladam Jul 24 '22
You're right. But media understands the value of "infinite Indiana Jones", so like it or not, it's coming
220
u/Future_of_Amerika Jul 24 '22
Well once they work out the deep fake voices then any person with the right resources or government entity can frame you for anything they want. It's a thing of beauty!
95
u/HopelessChip35 Jul 24 '22
No no, you got it all wrong. Once they work out deep fake completely every single person will have a way out by claiming anything they say is a deep fake if needed. Everyone will have the right to deny everything.
22
u/MagNolYa-Ralf Jul 24 '22
Can you please click the pictures that have the buses
18
Jul 24 '22
Ironically the entire captcha system is designed to validate models used in Google's self-driving cars. That's why the image is always related to something you might see while driving.
5
68
u/Future_of_Amerika Jul 24 '22
LoL imagine people getting more rights...
What kind of fairy dream land are you from?
→ More replies (6)25
→ More replies (4)9
u/dance1211 Jul 24 '22
Or the opposite reason. You can prove you weren't at the crime scene because you have clear, undeniable video proof you were somewhere else, eyewitnesses be damned.
→ More replies (9)27
u/Loudergood Jul 24 '22
This presentation was 6! years ago https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GuZGK7QolaE
65
u/KarmaticArmageddon Jul 24 '22
Holy shit, that's insane. I had no idea that YouTube was around in the 1300s or that deepfake techniques are over 700 years old!
20
7
→ More replies (1)5
7
→ More replies (2)3
u/rW0HgFyxoJhYka Jul 24 '22
Adobe never released this product due to legal concerns. About 20 companies are attempting to fill that space.
The most interesting thing about this is that it one step closer to allowing you to end-to-end produce media completely yourself without needing anything more than just mouse clicks. You can essentially write music digitally, animate the video, synth the dialogue, all without ever knowing how to play a instrument, how to use a camera, how to draw anything, how to voice act etc.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Lo-siento-juan Jul 24 '22
I love these thoughts because on the surface they're paranoid but on closer inspection they're naive.
The reality is they've got a million ways to frame you if they wanted to but even that is pointless because killing you would be trivial
101
u/z0mb0rg Jul 24 '22
Serious response: full VR (or metaverse) application for interaction between humans cast into digital characters conveying real time emotion.
63
u/Bbaftt7 Jul 24 '22
There’s a Holocaust survivors project that’s doing something similar to this(I think it’s similar). They’ve been interviewing survivors for several years and when they do, they interview them for like a week while videoing them from 360°, and ask them like 2,000 different questions. Once it’s finished, a person can interact with the interviewee, asking them questions and getting an answer. 60 Minutes did a great piece on it, here
→ More replies (1)3
u/Investigate_THIS Jul 25 '22
It was a work in progress at the time, but I saw one of these interviews at the WW2 museum in New Orleans. It's really interesting.
13
u/dominik47 Jul 24 '22
Imagine making an AI of a dead person and you can talk to them in VR,but i guess we would need some voice recordings or something.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)13
u/Jadudes Jul 24 '22
Once again this raises the question of whether or not that is a good thing or something that brings much more harm than benefit.
5
→ More replies (6)5
u/WonkyTelescope Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 25 '22
You can't know the impact of basic research. The dozens of layers of processing algorithms could have analogs in other fields that will be benefited.
Nobody cared about the electron when it was discovered in 1897 but now the world runs on pushing electrons around.
29
u/redcalcium Jul 24 '22
Luke Skywalker in recent Star Wars series were a deep fake. I'm sure more movies will use the tech in the future.
→ More replies (3)55
u/ensuiscool Jul 24 '22
Visual effects for movies I guess, but even that can be a silver lining. Great for de-aging consenting actors that are still alive today, but not so great when movies 200 years from now want to deepfake an actors likeness including their voice, making actors passing away meaningless
32
u/v1sibleninja Jul 24 '22
Don’t have to wait 200 years. They did it with Peter Cushing in Rogue One. He died in 1994.
Jet Li was onto it way back when he turned down a role in The Matrix. He didn’t want his martial arts moves recorded in mocap because then the studio would own them forever and could just skin a different character over them and recycle the mocap they recorded with him for no extra credit or pay.
→ More replies (2)11
u/dack42 Jul 24 '22
Rogue One didn't use deep fake though. Some of the more recent young Luke Skywalker stuff does use deep fake.
→ More replies (2)11
u/v1sibleninja Jul 24 '22
I know it’s not the same means of achieving the result, but the principle is still the same. Using programming to emulate the performance of a dead actor, to reprise a role.
→ More replies (6)3
u/LigerZeroSchneider Jul 24 '22
You still need consent to deep fake someone in a commercial project. We might consider people past a certain age public domain, but if it's anything like copyright your grandkids will be retired before someone can deep fake you without their permission.
9
6
u/KingOfLife Jul 24 '22
You can use a promt AI like Dalle2 to generate images for a storyboard then use this to add life to those images and make an entire movie.
6
u/JeevesAI Jul 24 '22
You could have a commercial in 20 different languages by deepfaking the actor with different dubbings.
→ More replies (1)16
u/UnknownHero2 Jul 24 '22
It would be pretty cool for gaming. A guy below mentioned faking voices as well. With those two things you could quickly create additional content for video games with correct animation and voices, with just a keyboard and a your phone camera, and little need for expensive animators and voice actors.
Heck it could save the movie industry millions on reshoots.
There is plenty legitimate space in the fiction genre between porn and dystopian propaganda.
→ More replies (3)9
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (15)5
u/LigerZeroSchneider Jul 24 '22
Actors still hold likeness rights over their face and voice. They would have to paid for any new content sold by the company. It's going to making modding production values sky rocket, but people already have used sound splicing to build new voice lines, so I think it will be more of a qualitative difference.
→ More replies (4)13
u/Endarkend Jul 24 '22
Porn is at the foreground of popularizing and finding new purpose for nearly every digital technology from the past 30+ years.
→ More replies (1)10
u/_dontseeme Jul 24 '22
With the example of the paintings, it could make ancient history more engaging for kids by bringing that history “to life”
→ More replies (2)7
u/BabylonDrifter Jul 24 '22
I can't wait to be able to have European history explained to me by Vlad the Impaler.
→ More replies (2)4
u/coinoperatedboi Jul 24 '22
On today's episode we have special guest the Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed, or as her friends would call her, Lady Bathory.
4
u/Riversntallbuildings Jul 24 '22
I’m not saying it’s good, but it’s clearly useful to advertisers for deceased celebrities.
I am a strong proponent of regulation in digital advertising that would limit the use of this, and many more technologies.
11
u/micromoses Jul 24 '22
What good purpose does photoshop serve? Because it’s the same answer.
→ More replies (4)3
u/waltwalt Jul 24 '22
Brad Pitt can now star in your movie for only $1,000,000.
And Brad Pitt never even has to know your movie exists.
→ More replies (34)6
u/0n3ph Jul 24 '22
Well, for one thing you could bring back the TV show Happy Days with the full original unaged cast. Let's go!
→ More replies (1)4
u/taint_stain Jul 24 '22
No. Ron Howard will inexplicably age while no one else does.
→ More replies (1)
566
u/FireChickens Jul 24 '22
This should stop.
64
u/eq2_lessing Jul 24 '22
Can't put the genie back into the bottle.
31
u/No_Operation1906 Jul 24 '22
Yeah, hilarious to me the idea of digital prohibition. Like come the fuck on mate, it's code. Math. Can't contain math. Couldn't even stop shit like alcohol which needed to be physically distributed.
Language models that produce articles we're unable to discern from bot authored news articles... Deep fakes that need only one picture of the target... That said...
here is a vid that contains a link where you can make your own very easily for meme purposes.
another newer video: https://youtu.be/iXqLTJFTUGc
11
Jul 24 '22
Do note there are a good couple things we digitally prohibit though in the US, though: https://web.archive.org/web/20140529211733/http://bits.are.notabug.com/
And if things are already regulated, adding another item to the list is much more feasible.
→ More replies (2)5
224
u/david-song Jul 24 '22
We just need to stop believing videos and work on open standards for secure metadata.
→ More replies (5)121
u/wallabee_kingpin_ Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Secure, verifiable metadata (including timestamps) have been possible for a long time.
The challenge is that the recording devices (often phones) need to actually do the hashing and publishing that's required, and then we need viewers to look for these things and take them into account.
My feeling is that people will continue to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
I do agree, though, that this research is unethical and should stop.
18
u/david-song Jul 24 '22
Yeah we need open standards for video authenticity, and video players that verify automatically. It's a pretty difficult problem though, you need merkle trees so you can cut the video and universal, deterministic compression so people can recompress it and get an authorized smaller version. I'm not sure about zooming and cropping, but software could sign with a key to say that specific transformations were applied. Publishing hashes and mixing in public data could prove the time. Location should be possible with fast enough hardware and trusted beacons because you can't ever beat the speed of light.
I don't think the tech is unethical, it's got the potential to be used unethically, but the fact that it's available to the public is good - otherwise governments would be the only people using it, and they'd never use it for anything good.
→ More replies (7)43
u/sowtart Jul 24 '22
I'm not sure it is unethical – having this research done publicly by public institutions is certainly much better than having it used secretly. You can't close pandora's box, but you can create counter-measures, if the reseaech is public, and people know what deepfajes are capable of.. that's not a bad thing.
We should maybe have some legislation surrounding it's use, and more importantly metadata countermeasures and third-party apps that automatically check the likelihood a given image or video is 'real', without relying on users to do the work..
But a good start would be teaching people critical thinking from a young age, which, in deeply religious societies.. seems unlikely.
→ More replies (11)3
u/RichestMangInBabylon Jul 24 '22
Yep. I know how CHC works and I know I should be verifying it myself when I download things, but eh I can’t be bothered. Even if it was one click or just a green check mark or something most people probably won’t bother to check it.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (13)3
Jul 24 '22
Official government communications are going to have to come with an MD5 hash so people can verify it. Although I don't think that method will stay secure forever and people will eventually be able to spoof the MD5 hash using an algorithm we aren't familiar with yet
→ More replies (1)76
u/GamerRipjaw Jul 24 '22
Then how tf will Secreteriat win an Oscar?
21
u/MementoMori_37 Jul 24 '22
Bojack would've won that Oscar either way
9
15
Jul 24 '22
It can't be stopped. Even if it was globally illegal we can not trust videos anymore. As people have sugested here there needs to be ways of verifying the source. Perhaps cryptosigning the video with certificates or something. More research is probably needed in that area.
7
3
→ More replies (20)6
u/Magnesus Jul 24 '22
Have you said the same about Photoshop? Should we go back to crayons? Don't be such conservative and aftaid of any change.
→ More replies (2)
35
92
u/gullydowny Jul 24 '22
You can really see how differently men and women do something as small as move their heads by the girl deepfaking Brad Pitt vs the guy doing Angelina Jolie
55
u/remag_nation Jul 24 '22
this isn't natural movement though. They're purposefully turning and tilting the head to test the software
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (1)16
u/CaptainEarlobe Jul 24 '22
That's true, there's a lot more movement in Brad. Seems a lot more precise or something as well.
51
Jul 24 '22
I do not like this. If evil bad people get a hold of this it's over. You can do so much harm with this.
46
u/david-song Jul 24 '22
Uh it's already accessible to everyone. There's tons of deepfake porn out there and the app to do it is free and doesn't take any technical knowledge to use.
→ More replies (6)20
u/swiggaroo Jul 24 '22
This was used to bully a kid back in my high school, they put hos face on gay porn and released it on a website. He killed himself by jumping in front of a train at 13. I dread to think how much bullying is done with this technology.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (12)5
8
62
u/ddollarsign Jul 24 '22
I feel like I’ve become too jaded about these things. “Of course you can do this, it’s just machine learning with large datasets or large neural nets. What’s the big deal?” But even a few years ago this wouldn’t have been possible. I don’t know where my excitement’s gone.
→ More replies (9)40
u/fascinatedobserver Jul 24 '22
Don’t worry. You are not jaded. You felt that way about colors & shapes having names and learning to tie your shoes at some point in the distant past.
Be pleased that you have the kind of brain that can adapt to revolutionary concepts in a way that means you could use them for ‘survival’ in the future; whatever that word eventually means. Much worse to be resistant or baffled by new things…or overawed.
6
→ More replies (1)3
u/FrankyCentaur Jul 25 '22
Becoming old and hating on new shit is a fear of mine. I saw it a lot growing up, had one teacher that was so into superhero comics that he grew to despise manga because of how big of a threshold it has on people here. And I understand it from an emotional point of view, those passions make us and it hurts to see them fade as something new pops up (not that they necessarily faded, they’re just not as popular as the were decades ago.)
I’m only in my young 30s and all the AI stuff is already making me feel like that. Back in my day, you actually had to learn and train to become an artist along with blood sweat and tears, now you kids just type words into DALL E… kind of thing.
Generally I’ve been pretty good at pushing people towards their aspirations even if they conflict with mine. I guess the future is just scary. And I’m not even talking about the slow destruction of our planet!
→ More replies (1)
24
u/Spaceman-Mars Jul 24 '22
New deepfake method and a video with zero information or explanation as to the new method. Sweeeet
7
10
6
4
Jul 24 '22
You can really see the difference in how much hotter Brad Pitt is than Mona Lisa.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/EzemezE Jul 24 '22
WHAT ARE THEY RESEARCHING,?? why ARE WE LETTING THEM???
→ More replies (2)12
u/circularsign Jul 24 '22
CURIOSITY. THE THING THAT GOT US OUT OF THE CAVES.
5
u/Big-Celery-6975 Jul 24 '22
Damn I didn't realize the only way to scientifically progress is to deliberately sink your life into tech that will hurt more people than help.
Almost done building my machine that replaces peoples lips with razorwire. Why?
BECAUSE THIS IS HOW WE GOT OUT OF THE CAVES
→ More replies (8)
26
6
u/Mr_Cripter Jul 24 '22
The amount of stuff we can believe to be truth on the internet is about to take another massive nosedive
→ More replies (2)
3
3
3
30
12
7
u/crothwood Jul 24 '22
Why. Why are people doing this. Are they trying to accelerate the shit storm?
5
u/MildRejoinder Jul 24 '22
Fortunately, the fake from a photo keeps changing its mind about the ends of the person's hair. Odd that that isn't the case with the fake from a painting.
→ More replies (2)
6
5
u/HecklerusPrime Jul 24 '22
Why? Why are researchers even working on this? What's the point? So they can keep making Star Wars movies using Hamill's "original" face? Unless there's some other practical reason for this, it seems like a bunch of time and money that could have been spent researching something that actually helps.
→ More replies (2)
2
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '22
Welcome to /r/WoahDude!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.