4 ms·
I'm under the impression that these things are easier to come infinitesimally close to, but very hard to get right: i.e. the old uncanny valley problem. A repor
by gnulinux 7y ago
I'm under the impression that these things are easier to come infinitesimally close to, but very hard to get right: i.e. the old uncanny valley problem. A reporter with $500 can get very close, but a team of PhD with thousands of dollars and a lot of time may never be able to produce something that'll convince the public.
I'm NOT claiming that this is the case, I'm just saying we don't have a reason to believe why this can't be the case.
- ghaff 7y agoI'd really hesitate to bet on never in this case--even if never were scoped to mean not within 20 years. There really are two separate questions though: - Can experts with a big budget create videos that even equally expert analysis can't tell from the real thing? (Maybe yes, maybe no. But it's hard. - With modest skill and budget, are people increasingly able to create fake videos that stand up a cursory glance and can fool people as a result? (Absolutely--or at least we're getting close.)
- gnulinux 7y agoMy point is, there is no close or far in this business. It's binary, either it looks real, or it doesn't. If your intention is to make deepfake to put it in a movie, video game or any other entertainment system, then sure you're right. But that already exists, DeepFake isn't a fundamental development for that. What is the "big thing" about deepfake is that we can imitate speeches of people in leadership positions. For this, we can get really really close; but it's unclear if it'll ever be realistic enough to be a problem in court cases, politics etc...