5 ms·
videos can be altered in this way for a long long time now. just not by neural networks. so in reality, it changes nothing.
by vectorEQ 7y ago
videos can be altered in this way for a long long time now. just not by neural networks. so in reality, it changes nothing.
- briffle 7y agoBut does the average juror understand that? In the future, when each of them has had their face transplanted on top of Chevy Chase or Beverly D'Angelo for some e-greeting for Christmas Vacation on Facebook, maybe they will stop trusting it.
- simias 7y agoIt does change a whole lot. Up until a few years ago you'd only have to be suspicious of very important videos coming from people who have access to convincing video editing. Some video coming from the USA, Chinese or Russian government trying to disprove war crimes? Yeah, better be careful. Some guy using damcash footage to prove the other driver was in the wrong? Not so much. As the technology improves and becomes accessible soon anybody will be able to edit videos convincingly without having to invest a massive amount of time or money. That's going to have a large impact I think.
- koonsolo 7y agoLook at the old video's of Bigfoots and UFO's. A lot of them have been questioned for years if they were fake or not. So in that sense it could have still be done pretty cheap.
- simias 7y agoNobody knows exactly what a UFO and Bigfoot really look like so that helps. The debate is not so much about whether the footage has been doctored but rather about what it depicts. A better example would probably be the moon landing footage or 9/11. And then it's really only questioned by conspiracy theorists and specifically because a state actor might have wanted to hide the evidence of a conspiracy. Tomorrow with this new technology I might not convince you that Bigfoot exists but I might be able to show you extremely convincing footage of Margaret Thatcher and Mao Zedong frolicking in the Swiss Alps while Tupac is watching.
- tzm 7y agoReducing technical complexity changes everything.