15 ms·
Creating a deepfake took two weeks and cost $552
- xedeon 7y agoThat's a terrible Deepfake to be honest. This is a much better example. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhUhypV27w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhUhypV27w
- SmallDeadGuy 7y agoMore convincing for the face, sure, but last I checked Schwarzenegger had much, much more body mass than in that video. Does anyone know if the technology for faking body shape (and accessories too maybe) is anywhere near as good as for faces yet?
- gdubs 7y agoI feel like what makes this one so good is how subtle it is. It took me a moment to go from, “wow, Hader really nailed the facial expressions,” to realizing what was going on. In this case, the body is being entirely ignored by the autoencoder. The way it works is by first doing a machine vision pass to isolate just faces and process on that region for both sets of source imagery.
- xedeon 7y ago> More convincing for the face, sure Uh.. That's what a DeepFake is? Look up the definition.
- SmallDeadGuy 7y agoFrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepfake: > Deepfakes (a portmanteau of "deep learning" and "fake"[1]) are media that take a person in an existing image or video and replace them with someone else's likeness using artificial neural networks. "Likeness" refers to appearance in general, not just the face.
- gnicholas 7y agoAgreed. The eyes in this video look weirdly bloodshot and unnatural. Even before it started playing I thought it looked bizarre.
- cwkoss 7y agoMight be because of the original, Zuck was widely criticized for his congressional testimony for his eyes looking weirdly bloodshot and generally looking very unnatural.
- Jernik 7y agoThe article addresses this, the point is that someone new to the technology can make this one that's ok "The video isn't perfect. It doesn't quite capture the full details of Data's face, and if you look closely you can see some artifacts around the edges. Still, what's remarkable is that a neophyte like me can create fairly convincing video so quickly and for so little money. And there's every reason to think deepfake technology will continue to get better, faster, and cheaper in the coming years."
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoWell Zuckerberg and Data do look like they were separated at birth, which I guess would make Zuckerberg Lore - which might also explain a few things.
- goatlover 7y agoSo FB is the crystalline entity or the rogue Borg?
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoFacebook does seem to have a strategy of assimilating every successful social platform.
- thathndude 7y agoI mean. No. I understand the point of the article is “look how much I did with so little.” And it’s really good in terms of how much was done. But the final deliverable isn’t at all convincing. Clickbait title.
- WaylonKenning 7y agoI didn't even realise it was Data until reading the article. I just thought Mark's eyes were looking a little weird.
- jotm 7y agoLike he forgot to use his ocular oil drops.
- phil9987 7y agoI totally agree. After watching only a second of the video I am convinced that this is not Mark Zuckerberg and that this video has been faked.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y agoIt's not meant to be Mark Zuckerberg, it's meant to be Data from Star Trek superimposed onto his face.
- darkcha0s 7y agoMade by a dude who has next to no experience in the field. Now imagine what a guy who knows what he's doing can do with a bit more money. That's what the allusion here is; the fact that a Reporter with 500$ even comes close should be an alarm signal to you.
- viggity 7y agoYou're exactly right. Look at the work of someone who does a lot of these and it's pretty damn impressive. I like Ctrl+Alt+Face on YouTube. ex - Bill Hader/Tom Cruise - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrhRBb-1Ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrhRBb-1Ig I think one thing that could have helped the reporter is if they had reencoded the original Zuckerberg footage into something with a lower bitrate. The fine details/imperfections on his forehead contrasted with the lower fidelity of data's face provides a little too much contrast. It doesn't help that most of the source data for Data's face is lower quality, plus he has so much makeup pancaked on his face. I think if those factors were accounted for, the reporter's results would have been much more convincing even though he's a deepfake neophyte.
- simias 7y agoA few weeks ago my girlfriend made me discover Instagram filters. Obviously they're not in "deep fake" territory but I was still massively impressed by the quality of the face recognition and tracking coupled with some rather advanced 3D reconstructions on top. 15 years ago that would've been science fiction, today it's a free gimmicky feature in an app running on commodity hardware. There are also apps that will smooth your skin or change the shape of your eyes in real time. All these technologies are evolving at a ridiculously fast pace, I'm sure that a decade from now you'll be able to do a much more convincing fake in a fraction of the time. We're getting deeper and deeper into a post-truth world.
- ryanwaggoner 7y agoI don't really understand this argument at all. We've been in this "post truth" world for a long time already for every form of media other than video. Text quotes, photos, and audio can all be easily faked. If I post a ridiculous quote here and say it's from Obama, you won't believe me. But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. We've been here for a long time already, now those standards will just apply to video as well. Doesn't seem that crazy. Also, I'm fascinated by the idea of using AI to detect the use of AI. How good will your deep fake have to be in order to fool a deep fake detection AI?
- siffland 7y agoDoes this mean now we have to coin the phrase "deepfake news" I can just hear people saying it now. Joking aside, and not taking in ANY ethical/unethical misuse considerations this software is capable of, it is really cool tech.
- ceejayoz 7y ago> But if the NYTimes does the same thing, it carries a lot more weight. Sure, and that's part of the danger. Convincing deep fakes will be used to delegitimize mainstream news organizations, as with what happened with Dan Rather - a trusted source presented faked documents.
- 7y ago
- Myrmornis 7y agoThat just looks like Mark Zuckerberg to me.
- Y-Bopinator 7y agoYou took too long and spent too much. Fired.
- Mc_Big_G 7y agoI couldn't tell it was Data from Star Trek until I read the story.
- gdubs 7y agoThe central technique used in DeepFakes is fascinating. Initially I assumed they were using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). But — and someone can correct if I’m wrong — Deep Fakes use two Autoencoders. So essentially you’re training a network how to compress an image down to a very tiny representation, and then uncompress it as accurately to the original as possible. You train two of these: one for the original face, and one for the target face. Then, you compress with the “source” autoencoder, and then uncompress with the “target” autoencoder. And, voila, ‘source‘ face becomes ‘target’ face.
- Der_Einzige 7y agoAutoencoders aren't even the best dimensionality reduction technique. Where are UMAP powered "manifold" fakes?
- LolWolf 7y agoUMAP is, sadly, extraordinarily slow, plus the inverse mapping is not clear.
- Der_Einzige 7y agoThere are GPU implementations...
- LolWolf 7y agoStill doesn't fix the inverse mapping problem, which is done immediately by Autoencoders, by definition.
- Forge36 7y agoThat is a fascinating way to describe this.
- nojvek 7y agoMakes sense. You want to boil down the face to some sort of abstract representation of movement of lips, face alignment etc. Then put in different parameters and have it be photorealistic on the other side. Could do wonders for video chat.
- turk73 7y agoThe whole "deep fake" controversy is only going on because the elite politicians all have blackmail videos that are probably in the hands of people that will soon make them public and the media is preparing the big lie that these are just "deep fakes, nothing to see here, move along." Meanwhile, the truth is that these people actually did do the heinous things we all think they did. Just look at what Prince Andrew tried to do: He was out whoring around and had photos taken--with the whore--and he has attempted to deny it citing that the photos are faked. But honestly, his own behavior and track record makes it clear that he is lying and that in all likelihood, he did in fact have sex with a 17 year old woman and all the allegations are true. The worst part of all this is that Prince Andrew's transgressions are the ones they WANT you to see because they are the ones that are more easy for the public to write off (she was 17 and consenting) and it was bad but just his bad judgement or what have you. My sense is that these "simple" cases are the are the tip of the iceberg, however. The ones they DON'T want you to see haven't been made public yet. And those are truly, pitchforks and torches, bad.
- kitd 7y agoCan content providers not include a digital signature in the video metadata? Then you can authenticate the video against the original provider, a bit like the green padlock next to the URL bar in Chrome. Even better (though I'm not sure this technology exists yet), some some kind of "rolling signature", available running along side the video in metadata, that a media player can use to validate the authenticity of the video at that point in time. Then you don't need the full video to be able to verify the source.
- Mathnerd314 7y agoThere's a newer model that can be used pre-trained and doesn't need to be retrained for each face pair: https://nirkin.com/fsgan/ https://nirkin.com/fsgan/ But for now deepfakes seem like a 2018 meme that died out.
- DyslexicAtheist 7y agointeresting conclusion: > In the long run, the larger risk may be that public attitudes swing too far in the opposite direction: that the possibility of deepfakes completely destroys public trust in video evidence. Certain politicians are already in the habit of dismissing media criticism as "fake news." That tactic will only become more effective as public awareness of deepfake technology grows. Deepfakes themselves will not disrupt democracies or cause the much anticipated chaos. Deepfakes are in fact pointless for agitprop / disinfo campaigns: "cheapfakes beat deepfakes" --@thegrugq https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1206404680223358976 https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1206404680223358976 https://medium.com/@thegrugq/cheap-fakes-beat-deep-fakes-b1ac91e44837 https://medium.com/@thegrugq/cheap-fakes-beat-deep-fakes-b1a... What is fascinating (and uncommon) is, that the damage isn't delivered with any specific deepfake itself. But the mere awareness that the technology exists, and that they could _potentially_ be used, is enough to change our risk perception. Even if the ratio cheapfakes/deepfakes usage in actual disinfo campaigns remains tiny percentage, deepfakes make much better headlines. (in a similar way the infosec industry is obsessed with 0days - but most of the risks are coming from people clicking on links in email) Maybe one day we will look at deepfakes like "art". If pictures and videos can be art, and if "all art is propaganda" (see Orwell), then deepfakes too should be considered art, no?
- Veoich_py 7y agoThis work is just at the research stage right now and isn’t available as consumer software, but it probably won’t be long until similar services go public.
- spullara 7y agoYou can do these overnight on high end gaming GPU boxes with https://github.com/iperov/DeepFaceLab https://github.com/iperov/DeepFaceLab
- Zenst 7y agoThinking ahead - will Hollywood in 50 years time be actor based or digital rights based when your film is computer rendered and you pick your own actors that get digitally placed. Effectively reducing actors to DLC! Remember, technology to fake voices has already be done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw Certainly interesting times ahead.
- sitkack 7y agoBrent Spiner is by far the best actor on TNG. Even Zuck wearing a Cmdr Data skin is an inferior copy.