3 ms·

Photoshop is more than 30 years old. And in three decades, the impact of manipulated images on people's reputations hasn't been quite as devastating as people o

by koboll 7y ago

Photoshop is more than 30 years old. And in three decades, the impact of manipulated images on people's reputations hasn't been quite as devastating as people once feared. Why won't it be the same this time? It's much easier to fool a human than to fool tools designed to detect manipulation, and that's limited fake photos' impact severely. As long as we have ways to detect fakes, and media responsible enough to do the cursory investigation required to verify authenticity, I don't see why manipulated videos poses any greater risk than manipulated photos.

mushufasa 7y ago
> In three decades, the impact of manipulated images on people's reputations hasn't been quite as devastating as people once feared. As the cost of producing fakes approaches zero, the noise-to-signal ratio increases until people distrust everything they see and hear. I'd argue we are already on that path, and have already begun feeling the consequences. (Read about the Russian "Internet Research Agency" and their role in tampering the US 2016 election.) Deep fakes accelerates that trend. > As long as we have ways to detect fakes, and media responsible enough to do the cursory investigation required to verify authenticity... Media is becoming less prone to cursory investigation (fragmentation, understaffing/lack of revenue). A GAN is specifically designed to fool detection, and they're only getting stronger.
- JetSpiegel 7y ago
  > As the cost of producing fakes approaches zero, the noise-to-signal ratio increases until people distrust everything they see and hear. This is a bold face lie. The cost of producing the fake is nearly irrelevant, what matters is the reputation of the broadcaster. This has been so simce time immemorial and did not change with Photoshop. Many journalistic revelations stand, even though they could be trivially faked. The Snowden documents would cost trivial amounts of money to fake (it's a bunch of PowerPoints), but people believe it, because se US government issued a warrant for his capture. The metadata is much harder to fake.

by koboll 7y ago

mushufasa 7y ago

> In three decades, the impact of manipulated images on people's reputations hasn't been quite as devastating as people once feared. As the cost of producing fakes approaches zero, the noise-to-signal ratio increases until people distrust everything they see and hear. I'd argue we are already on that path, and have already begun feeling the consequences. (Read about the Russian "Internet Research Agency" and their role in tampering the US 2016 election.) Deep fakes accelerates that trend. > As long as we have ways to detect fakes, and media responsible enough to do the cursory investigation required to verify authenticity... Media is becoming less prone to cursory investigation (fragmentation, understaffing/lack of revenue). A GAN is specifically designed to fool detection, and they're only getting stronger.

JetSpiegel 7y ago
> As the cost of producing fakes approaches zero, the noise-to-signal ratio increases until people distrust everything they see and hear. This is a bold face lie. The cost of producing the fake is nearly irrelevant, what matters is the reputation of the broadcaster. This has been so simce time immemorial and did not change with Photoshop. Many journalistic revelations stand, even though they could be trivially faked. The Snowden documents would cost trivial amounts of money to fake (it's a bunch of PowerPoints), but people believe it, because se US government issued a warrant for his capture. The metadata is much harder to fake.