4 ms·

Well, I also like the facts that: * Everyone can access it. Not just sophisticated actors anymore * It might make us rethink the entire "truth" chain, on how

Well, I also like the facts that: * Everyone can access it. Not just sophisticated actors anymore * It might make us rethink the entire "truth" chain, on how we source our information Of course, the two go hand-in-hand, but the latter point is overdue: while video is perhaps more glaring, it's something that's needed in a lot of other areas as well (text -- news articles, messages, mail; sound -- phone calls, etc; image -- photoshop, though we start to get used to it).

cowpig 7y ago
> Everyone can access it. Not just sophisticated actors anymore Why do you like this?
- geerlingguy 7y ago
  “When everyone’s special, no one is.” Basically, a (good) deepfake was out of reach for all but a few until recently, so if some bad actor with money and resources wanted to fake a video they could do it and few people would even think it could be faked. Nowadays, the bar is way higher for this, as every video can be suspect.
  - kickopotomus 7y ago
    > every video can be suspect. But how many will suspect them? If 10 million people watch a video but only (generously) 1 million people think or are at least willing to consider it may be fake, that is very effective disinformation. We have to remember that the average person (especially in older generations) is likely unaware that this sort of technology is possible and easily accessible.
    - NateEag 7y ago
      As people with the knowledge that video is no longer trustworthy, it is incumbent on us to share that message with other people, so it does become common knowledge.
    - wholinator2 7y ago
      More people will suspect them than before. Just like photoshopping is now coming knowledge enough to have terms associated with it added to the common lexicon.
skybrian 7y ago
What's good about letting every script kiddie use it? I'm thinking, the less usage the better? I agree that provenance could become more important, but I don't see it changing how memes spread. For a lot of people it's just entertainment and they don't care whether it's true.
- short_sells_poo 7y ago
  > What's good about letting every script kiddie use it? I think parent was making a point that once this tech is in the hands of the common man, it's value for sophisticated players might diminish strongly. Same way as an undisclosed 0day in a high value target (say IOS), is extremely valuable. Once it gets disclosed and everyone knows about it, people can come up with workarounds and eventual fixes, rendering the threat basically defanged. I'm leaning towards the same school of thought. I'd rather see this tech widely accessible and hence all video/picture material henceforth considered completely untrustworthy, than living in the misguided notion that video evidence is trustworthy.
  - schwurb 7y ago
    > I'm leaning towards the same school of thought. I'd rather see this tech widely accessible and hence all video/picture material henceforth considered completely untrustworthy, than living in the misguided notion that video evidence is trustworthy. This is why I am all for the current hype and the apps. Everyone that has access to electronic media should now that videos are now more easily to manipulate than ever. This undermines the attack vector of supporting fake news with fake videos. (At least it should, I do not know about the psychological side of it. Maybe even knowledge of a video's falsehood does not diminish its impact that much. Still I think it is best to make video fakeability common knowledge.)
  - cmroanirgo 7y ago
    I used to work for a company who made verifiable audio and video for law enforcement. Even a constant running timecode could be circumvented in the early 90's. (They used to use a dedicated audio channel to encode a hash of the last few seconds - on analogue). It actually takes a lot of effort to show that a video hasn't been/could not have been doctored.

cowpig 7y ago

> Everyone can access it. Not just sophisticated actors anymore Why do you like this?

geerlingguy 7y ago
“When everyone’s special, no one is.” Basically, a (good) deepfake was out of reach for all but a few until recently, so if some bad actor with money and resources wanted to fake a video they could do it and few people would even think it could be faked. Nowadays, the bar is way higher for this, as every video can be suspect.
- kickopotomus 7y ago
  > every video can be suspect. But how many will suspect them? If 10 million people watch a video but only (generously) 1 million people think or are at least willing to consider it may be fake, that is very effective disinformation. We have to remember that the average person (especially in older generations) is likely unaware that this sort of technology is possible and easily accessible.
  - NateEag 7y ago
    As people with the knowledge that video is no longer trustworthy, it is incumbent on us to share that message with other people, so it does become common knowledge.
  - wholinator2 7y ago
    More people will suspect them than before. Just like photoshopping is now coming knowledge enough to have terms associated with it added to the common lexicon.

skybrian 7y ago

What's good about letting every script kiddie use it? I'm thinking, the less usage the better? I agree that provenance could become more important, but I don't see it changing how memes spread. For a lot of people it's just entertainment and they don't care whether it's true.

short_sells_poo 7y ago
> What's good about letting every script kiddie use it? I think parent was making a point that once this tech is in the hands of the common man, it's value for sophisticated players might diminish strongly. Same way as an undisclosed 0day in a high value target (say IOS), is extremely valuable. Once it gets disclosed and everyone knows about it, people can come up with workarounds and eventual fixes, rendering the threat basically defanged. I'm leaning towards the same school of thought. I'd rather see this tech widely accessible and hence all video/picture material henceforth considered completely untrustworthy, than living in the misguided notion that video evidence is trustworthy.
- schwurb 7y ago
  > I'm leaning towards the same school of thought. I'd rather see this tech widely accessible and hence all video/picture material henceforth considered completely untrustworthy, than living in the misguided notion that video evidence is trustworthy. This is why I am all for the current hype and the apps. Everyone that has access to electronic media should now that videos are now more easily to manipulate than ever. This undermines the attack vector of supporting fake news with fake videos. (At least it should, I do not know about the psychological side of it. Maybe even knowledge of a video's falsehood does not diminish its impact that much. Still I think it is best to make video fakeability common knowledge.)
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  I used to work for a company who made verifiable audio and video for law enforcement. Even a constant running timecode could be circumvented in the early 90's. (They used to use a dedicated audio channel to encode a hash of the last few seconds - on analogue). It actually takes a lot of effort to show that a video hasn't been/could not have been doctored.