interesting conclusion: > In the long run, the larger risk may be that public attitudes swing too far in the opposite direction: that the possibility of deepfa

interesting 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?