4 ms·

Their mouth movement wasn't particularly natural in the parts where the speech was edited. It's good enough that it will fool some people on Facebook/Twitter,

Their mouth movement wasn't particularly natural in the parts where the speech was edited. It's good enough that it will fool some people on Facebook/Twitter, but it's pretty far from being able to stand up to any scrutiny.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
Isn't that all it takes to spread propaganda? We're living in an age where if it feels right, it is, even if it's blatantly false.
latexr 7y ago
I agree that their mouth movement wasn’t particularly natural, but I disagree that it isn’t enough to fool most of us if we’re unaware. We’re not fixing our eyes on a person’s mouth while they talk. Think of the scenario where someone edits a few seconds of a 30-minute interview. They make the interviewee go from saying they hate drugs to saying they love drugs. Even if you weren’t expecting that claim from that person, would you go back and recheck their mouth movement, to be certain if it was edited or not? Unlikely. Even if you would, I’d wager most wouldn’t, including most of us that could detect it.
- RandallBrown 7y ago
  For propaganda, this will be great. The thing is, you don't even need convincing videos for propaganda to work. For truly scary things, like falsifying evidence, I think it will be awhile before this will get past expert analysis, or even a group of people on Reddit trying to prove it wrong. In the long term, video will simply be treated like photos are now. With disbelief.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    It can also be used to 'ratfuck', if a video is released with a politician saying a gaffe, they can release a bunch of similar but fake videos and then claim that 'all of them' are fake. The confusion would sow doubt- the technique could be used offensively as well as defensively.
underwater 7y ago
The tech is only going to get better, faster, and easier to use. And that will happen incredibly quickly. Being able to spot artefacts in the output is not a viable defence.

SketchySeaBeast 7y ago

Isn't that all it takes to spread propaganda? We're living in an age where if it feels right, it is, even if it's blatantly false.

latexr 7y ago

I agree that their mouth movement wasn’t particularly natural, but I disagree that it isn’t enough to fool most of us if we’re unaware. We’re not fixing our eyes on a person’s mouth while they talk. Think of the scenario where someone edits a few seconds of a 30-minute interview. They make the interviewee go from saying they hate drugs to saying they love drugs. Even if you weren’t expecting that claim from that person, would you go back and recheck their mouth movement, to be certain if it was edited or not? Unlikely. Even if you would, I’d wager most wouldn’t, including most of us that could detect it.

RandallBrown 7y ago
For propaganda, this will be great. The thing is, you don't even need convincing videos for propaganda to work. For truly scary things, like falsifying evidence, I think it will be awhile before this will get past expert analysis, or even a group of people on Reddit trying to prove it wrong. In the long term, video will simply be treated like photos are now. With disbelief.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  It can also be used to 'ratfuck', if a video is released with a politician saying a gaffe, they can release a bunch of similar but fake videos and then claim that 'all of them' are fake. The confusion would sow doubt- the technique could be used offensively as well as defensively.

underwater 7y ago

The tech is only going to get better, faster, and easier to use. And that will happen incredibly quickly. Being able to spot artefacts in the output is not a viable defence.