5 ms·

It still looks wrong. There's still some of the floating/stuck-on head feeling about it. Or is that just because we already know it's fake from the headline? (.

It still looks wrong. There's still some of the floating/stuck-on head feeling about it. Or is that just because we already know it's fake from the headline? (... and the way that the flag moves is totally wrong .../s).

dwoozle 7y ago
No one says that deep fakes are production ready today... but given the speed of progress, they’re going to be in FAR less time than takes for our social and political systems to mount a response, so there’s going to be some fucked up consequences of them.
asdfman123 7y ago
That's true, but you have to also realize that Nixon looks wrong on TV in general. Maybe they did too good of a deep-fake. ;)
jedberg 7y ago
You’d have to be paying real close attention to notice that, which you are primed to do because you’ve been told it’s a deep fake. You’re probably also more of an expert than most. But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?
- jdminhbg 7y ago
  > But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? The technology to fool someone who has the TV on in the background has existed forever. You could do it with a stunt double. The problem is fooling everyone such that "this video is faked" doesn't become a bigger story than the fake video in the first place.
  - scj 7y ago
    Some people would demand fake videos supporting their point of view be taken seriously. Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.
    - v8engine 7y ago
      Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes. I didn't understand your scenario. Can you expand on that?
      - pjc50 7y ago
        Saying "the Nixon video is fake" in a community of Nixon truthers will get you verbally attacked? It seems extremely likely.
      - msla 7y ago
        It's already a common troll[1] to just post "FAKE" in anything where the evidence is difficult/impossible to verify. There's a whole subreddit, /r/NothingEverHappens, devoted to making fun of this troll, and adding politics/culture war to the mix will just make the backlash to people who call "FAKE" that much worse. [1] "Troll" as in "derailing tactic used by people who don't know or care if it's really fake or not" simply to be extra-clear. In politics, throwing out chaff and using derailing tactics to make it effectively impossible to have certain discussions in open fora can be a good way to prevent inconvenient ideas from being spread, in addition to the usual tactics around sowing uncertainty and confusion among the enemy.
    - fortran77 7y ago
      Exactly. We've seen this in responses to (for example) the Rolling Stone fake sexual assault story. Many people said "the problem is real even if this story may not be." So people may push fake stories to make what they believe to be a justified point.
- minikites 7y ago
  >But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? I'm not convinced deepfakes will be that big of a problem because people already believe things that aren't real (and don't believe things that are real) without the help of technology.
  - ignoramous 7y ago
    > people already believe things that aren't real That's the problem: These people can now parade proof when there isn't any, perhaps even rally to garner majority and dilute out actual facts. > (and don't believe things that are real) For instance, refusing to acknowledge deep-fakes despite being labeled as such...?
    - minikites 7y ago
      The point I was going for is that "proof" already doesn't work on lots of people, that's the real issue. Information literacy is an important skill that much of the populace lacks.
  - cvwright 7y ago
    But now people will also have more reason to disbelieve things that are true. Imagine if Trump could claim that the "Grab em by the $#@%" tape was a fake, or if Biden could do the same about the tape of him bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
    - azinman2 7y ago
      He already is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/trump-access-hollywood-tape.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/trump-access-...
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Real life is not exactly preparing people for spotting fakes these days. The bizarre is real, the plausible will likely get a pass.
- hanniabu 7y ago
  > But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? This won't change much compared to now. There are videos of Trump saying something, then in an interview he denies he ever said that. People believe that he never said those things and real proof is dismissed. What I'm saying is, people believe lies even when there's no proof and when there's video proving that what was said is a lie.
jstanley 7y ago
I don't agree. If I didn't know that was a deepfake, there is no way I would guess that it is. It's more than good enough to convince me.
- Loughla 7y ago
  I'm with you. If this article was titled, "unbroadcasted footage of Nixon speech found in archive" I would've bought that headline 100%. This is too good. This is going to cause problems. Many, many problems. We already have issues with what is real and what isn't, when you can still trust video for the most part. I am not excited to see what this does to society. It's one of those - just because we can, does that mean we should - sort of scenarios.
  - sixstringtheory 7y ago
    Absolutely agreed. I’d really love to be able to talk to someone who works on stuff like this, like from all those companies mentioned in the article, and ask them why they continue to advance the state of this art? Do they think it is inevitable? Are they just integrating many separate features used to create entertainment like CGI/dubbed movies? We’re opening Pandora’s box like a kid on Christmas morning.
Swizec 7y ago
Honestly even knowing it was fake I had a hard time convincing myself it was fake. My only clue was the way his chin intersected with the collar looked a little off But I’ve seen things look off like that in real life under certain lighting conditions so I would’ve waved it away.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
Both the head-motion and the voice seemed a little jumpy/choppy to me, reminiscent of Max Headroom. Do authentic TV recordings of Nixon have that same quality?
Vysero 7y ago
I agree, I could tell. The shadowing was wrong, he looks like a bobble head. That being said, it was too close for my comfort... it won't take long before they can fool anyone.
vernie 7y ago
The disparity between his speech and head movement makes it looks like he's suffering from Parkinson's disease.
everdrive 7y ago
Don't forget the other side of the coin: The President really does give a speech or make a comment, but 50% of the electorate is sure it's a deepfake.
driverdan 7y ago
The wider shot definitely had an uncanny valley feeling for me. His head movement seemed unnatural. The tight shot, however, was really good. I'm not sure I'd think it was fake if I wasn't primed for it.
proverbialbunny 7y ago
If you're not old enough to tell what Nixon was really like, then you don't have that comparison. You wouldn't suspect it was a fake without being told. However, there are some clear give-a-ways that may or may not stick around, priming at least myself into identifying a deep fake from not: His movements do not line up with the way muscles work in the human body. In a single direction it works, but how he bounces back would cause a lot of neck strain, so no one would do that.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Yeah the acting is off. The mouth doesn't seem to carry the same gravitas and tension that his eyes do. Also there's a line across his cheek in the closeup and the bottom left hand corner of the mouth fades into a blurry mess once or twice. The deepfake look generates blurry results for blending.

dwoozle 7y ago

No one says that deep fakes are production ready today... but given the speed of progress, they’re going to be in FAR less time than takes for our social and political systems to mount a response, so there’s going to be some fucked up consequences of them.

asdfman123 7y ago

That's true, but you have to also realize that Nixon looks wrong on TV in general. Maybe they did too good of a deep-fake. ;)

jedberg 7y ago

You’d have to be paying real close attention to notice that, which you are primed to do because you’ve been told it’s a deep fake. You’re probably also more of an expert than most. But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?

jdminhbg 7y ago
> But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? The technology to fool someone who has the TV on in the background has existed forever. You could do it with a stunt double. The problem is fooling everyone such that "this video is faked" doesn't become a bigger story than the fake video in the first place.
- scj 7y ago
  Some people would demand fake videos supporting their point of view be taken seriously. Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.
  - v8engine 7y ago
    Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes. I didn't understand your scenario. Can you expand on that?
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Saying "the Nixon video is fake" in a community of Nixon truthers will get you verbally attacked? It seems extremely likely.
    - msla 7y ago
      It's already a common troll[1] to just post "FAKE" in anything where the evidence is difficult/impossible to verify. There's a whole subreddit, /r/NothingEverHappens, devoted to making fun of this troll, and adding politics/culture war to the mix will just make the backlash to people who call "FAKE" that much worse. [1] "Troll" as in "derailing tactic used by people who don't know or care if it's really fake or not" simply to be extra-clear. In politics, throwing out chaff and using derailing tactics to make it effectively impossible to have certain discussions in open fora can be a good way to prevent inconvenient ideas from being spread, in addition to the usual tactics around sowing uncertainty and confusion among the enemy.
  - fortran77 7y ago
    Exactly. We've seen this in responses to (for example) the Rolling Stone fake sexual assault story. Many people said "the problem is real even if this story may not be." So people may push fake stories to make what they believe to be a justified point.
minikites 7y ago
>But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? I'm not convinced deepfakes will be that big of a problem because people already believe things that aren't real (and don't believe things that are real) without the help of technology.
- ignoramous 7y ago
  > people already believe things that aren't real That's the problem: These people can now parade proof when there isn't any, perhaps even rally to garner majority and dilute out actual facts. > (and don't believe things that are real) For instance, refusing to acknowledge deep-fakes despite being labeled as such...?
  - minikites 7y ago
    The point I was going for is that "proof" already doesn't work on lots of people, that's the real issue. Information literacy is an important skill that much of the populace lacks.
- cvwright 7y ago
  But now people will also have more reason to disbelieve things that are true. Imagine if Trump could claim that the "Grab em by the $#@%" tape was a fake, or if Biden could do the same about the tape of him bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
  - azinman2 7y ago
    He already is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/trump-access-hollywood-tape.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/us/politics/trump-access-...
jacquesm 7y ago
Real life is not exactly preparing people for spotting fakes these days. The bizarre is real, the plausible will likely get a pass.
hanniabu 7y ago
> But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake? This won't change much compared to now. There are videos of Trump saying something, then in an interview he denies he ever said that. People believe that he never said those things and real proof is dismissed. What I'm saying is, people believe lies even when there's no proof and when there's video proving that what was said is a lie.

jstanley 7y ago

I don't agree. If I didn't know that was a deepfake, there is no way I would guess that it is. It's more than good enough to convince me.

Loughla 7y ago
I'm with you. If this article was titled, "unbroadcasted footage of Nixon speech found in archive" I would've bought that headline 100%. This is too good. This is going to cause problems. Many, many problems. We already have issues with what is real and what isn't, when you can still trust video for the most part. I am not excited to see what this does to society. It's one of those - just because we can, does that mean we should - sort of scenarios.
- sixstringtheory 7y ago
  Absolutely agreed. I’d really love to be able to talk to someone who works on stuff like this, like from all those companies mentioned in the article, and ask them why they continue to advance the state of this art? Do they think it is inevitable? Are they just integrating many separate features used to create entertainment like CGI/dubbed movies? We’re opening Pandora’s box like a kid on Christmas morning.

Swizec 7y ago

Honestly even knowing it was fake I had a hard time convincing myself it was fake. My only clue was the way his chin intersected with the collar looked a little off But I’ve seen things look off like that in real life under certain lighting conditions so I would’ve waved it away.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

Both the head-motion and the voice seemed a little jumpy/choppy to me, reminiscent of Max Headroom. Do authentic TV recordings of Nixon have that same quality?

Vysero 7y ago

I agree, I could tell. The shadowing was wrong, he looks like a bobble head. That being said, it was too close for my comfort... it won't take long before they can fool anyone.

vernie 7y ago

The disparity between his speech and head movement makes it looks like he's suffering from Parkinson's disease.

everdrive 7y ago

Don't forget the other side of the coin: The President really does give a speech or make a comment, but 50% of the electorate is sure it's a deepfake.

driverdan 7y ago

The wider shot definitely had an uncanny valley feeling for me. His head movement seemed unnatural. The tight shot, however, was really good. I'm not sure I'd think it was fake if I wasn't primed for it.

proverbialbunny 7y ago

If you're not old enough to tell what Nixon was really like, then you don't have that comparison. You wouldn't suspect it was a fake without being told. However, there are some clear give-a-ways that may or may not stick around, priming at least myself into identifying a deep fake from not: His movements do not line up with the way muscles work in the human body. In a single direction it works, but how he bounces back would cause a lot of neck strain, so no one would do that.

friendlybus 7y ago
Yeah the acting is off. The mouth doesn't seem to carry the same gravitas and tension that his eyes do. Also there's a line across his cheek in the closeup and the bottom left hand corner of the mouth fades into a blurry mess once or twice. The deepfake look generates blurry results for blending.