27 ms·

>Being able to conjure up a confession for anything by anyone is extremely powerful Being able to dismiss credible video evidence as 'deepfake' is equally powe

>Being able to conjure up a confession for anything by anyone is extremely powerful Being able to dismiss credible video evidence as 'deepfake' is equally powerful. In any case, it would be extremely risky to hang a case on a single confession video that the accused claims is fake, given the current pattern of prosecution the DOJ would never bring that case; it would be embarrassing in the public eye and probably overturned on appeal, if it even made it to trial.

germinalphrase 8y ago
Garry Kasparov has often accused V. Putin of maintaining his public influence by successfully attacking the idea that a verifiable truth can be established about his/oligarchical misdeeds. Surely, there are techniques to make educated assessments about the probability that [this] happened rather than [that] - but the public at large is neither literate in statistics nor receptive to uncertainty.
- flyingcircus3 8y ago
  That's my view as well. In a time of information overload especially, people seem to be far more concerned in simply ending uncertainty, than validating the answer that precipitates that certainty. I believe this is referred to as the firehose model of propoganda. It effectively normalizes tu quoque fallacies, as the people whole have taken on a new set of facts are completely unprepared to debate the merits of those facts, and instead fallback to defending their newfound certainty.
prepend 8y ago
The bigger risk would be PR types where there is no court and prosecuted. For example, the Clippers were forcibly sold after the owner-Donald Sterling[0] was outed as a racist. A few fake videos like that would have high impact and wouldn’t need to go through court. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling
- creaghpatr 8y ago
  I agree, but would-be fakers should be deterred by the airtight defamation case that would cost them millions. That is, of course, if the plaintiffs can prove the video is in fact, fake.
  - prepend 8y ago
    I think it’s actually hard to launch such a case. I mean take Sterling. The tape was illegally leaked and was there a defamation suit against the leaker? California requires dual consent for recording [0], and no criminal charges have been brought or civil charges. Not the same, but shows there’s no repurcussion in this type of situation. The issue is that it will be really hard to prove as fake so even if an adversary didn’t just anonymously leak the material. In a PR situation you don’t need authenticity, just confusion. I expect that you could use this pretty effectively for stock scams (eg, video posted on Friday that Bezos is launching electric car tanks Tesla, etc). Or even more sinister fake videos of things that may be true (video of Musk assaulting some woman). What I’m actually scanning for are small markets with small $10-100k upside potential like a fake video of Tom Cruise that impact Mission Impossible opening that can be shorted through mediapredict or other markets that aren’t SEC regulated. Not to do it of course, but to see trends in how these videos are developed. [0] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

germinalphrase 8y ago

Garry Kasparov has often accused V. Putin of maintaining his public influence by successfully attacking the idea that a verifiable truth can be established about his/oligarchical misdeeds. Surely, there are techniques to make educated assessments about the probability that [this] happened rather than [that] - but the public at large is neither literate in statistics nor receptive to uncertainty.

flyingcircus3 8y ago
That's my view as well. In a time of information overload especially, people seem to be far more concerned in simply ending uncertainty, than validating the answer that precipitates that certainty. I believe this is referred to as the firehose model of propoganda. It effectively normalizes tu quoque fallacies, as the people whole have taken on a new set of facts are completely unprepared to debate the merits of those facts, and instead fallback to defending their newfound certainty.

prepend 8y ago

The bigger risk would be PR types where there is no court and prosecuted. For example, the Clippers were forcibly sold after the owner-Donald Sterling[0] was outed as a racist. A few fake videos like that would have high impact and wouldn’t need to go through court. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Sterling

creaghpatr 8y ago
I agree, but would-be fakers should be deterred by the airtight defamation case that would cost them millions. That is, of course, if the plaintiffs can prove the video is in fact, fake.
- prepend 8y ago
  I think it’s actually hard to launch such a case. I mean take Sterling. The tape was illegally leaked and was there a defamation suit against the leaker? California requires dual consent for recording [0], and no criminal charges have been brought or civil charges. Not the same, but shows there’s no repurcussion in this type of situation. The issue is that it will be really hard to prove as fake so even if an adversary didn’t just anonymously leak the material. In a PR situation you don’t need authenticity, just confusion. I expect that you could use this pretty effectively for stock scams (eg, video posted on Friday that Bezos is launching electric car tanks Tesla, etc). Or even more sinister fake videos of things that may be true (video of Musk assaulting some woman). What I’m actually scanning for are small markets with small $10-100k upside potential like a fake video of Tom Cruise that impact Mission Impossible opening that can be shorted through mediapredict or other markets that aren’t SEC regulated. Not to do it of course, but to see trends in how these videos are developed. [0] http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law