5 ms·
Show HN: Create a Deep Fake Video from Any Image
- chrisco255 6y agoYeah this deep fake is flawed enough to be amusing. But I know we're probably only 1-2 years away from producing extremely convincing deep fakes at a whim. In my mind, blockchain is the only thing that can counterbalance this tech. We need blockchain signed photos and videos to ensure authenticity.
- jsf01 6y agoWhat stops me from signing my own deepfaked video and putting that on the blockchain?
- scubbo 6y ago^^ this
- sitkack 6y agoWhat stops me from writing a check to myself and cashing it?
- blahbhthrow3748 6y agoa) it is absolutely conceivable to write a cheque to yourself. For example, to move cash between bank accounts b) the bank has a big database and a system of clearing cheques that ensures you cannot double-spend money by writing yourself a cheque. If you try to kite cheques by abusing the latency in the system they notice because it turns out you can just write that down in a central database too and it's pretty effective
- wolco 6y agoI remember a friend doing that. More funny a friend wrote I owe you $5 and deposited and took out $10 the minimum allowed. What happened was that person lost the ability to deposit and withdraw. There is a level of trust but things will catch up to you.
- sitkack 6y agoFor those that aren't following along, the answer is nothing and the parents comment completely misses the point of being able to attribute something to a person.
- chrisco255 6y agoIf you want to incriminate yourself with a deep fake, go for it. But the point is that video evidence will cease to be a reliable source of truth by the end of this decade. That's stunning, and the implications are drastic. Digital signatures to validate a source and recording method are needed.
- scubbo 6y agoI see blockchain-verification hype all over the place, and no-one's ever been able to convince me of how it would actually work in situations like this. Could you elaborate? How would you differentiate between "a 'legitimate' video that has been taken by a camera" and "a video that has been edited, and then had its provenance metadata edited to look like it is raw"? Given that there cannot possibly be any consensus protocol that verifies that "data I created myself" is legitimate, how can you prove that anything isn't legitimate?
- evanevan 6y agoOne thing you could do is have the camera hardware sign the raw image, then make a zero knowledge proof that says original photo was signed by real hardware, and then the only edits applied to it were simple things like cropping, changing colors etc Seems reasonable to coordinate the updates with a blockchain (though not necessary for use cases where you trust the platform / coordinating entity). Disclaimer I work at a zkSNARK / blockchain company :)
- Nursie 6y agoSo like most solutions involving blockchains, no blockchain is actually required.
- lern_too_spel 6y agoWhy blockchain? You just need the original video and its metadata to be signed by the camera. A blockchain would be just as useless here as every other place a blockchain has been applied.
- chrisco255 6y agoI use Ethereum every week. I buy things with Bitcoin at least once a month. I invest and bank part of my money on decentralized applications pegged to the USD in stable coins. Sorry, blockchain is more than useful and your rhetoric is out of date. The use of blockchain is important as a global timestamp that can be trusted.
- lern_too_spel 6y agoThe point is that everywhere you are using blockchain, other solutions are superior, which makes it useless. If I wanted to inconvenience myself, I could buy things by bartering paperclips too, but that doesn't mean that paperclips are useful as currency. The difference between paperclips and blockchain is that paperclips solve one problem better than others, while blockchain has zero real world uses where it is better than alternatives.
- irjustin 6y agoSigh... why is blockchain the only answer? Blockchain or any signing system, PGP, shared key, is only as good as the person/entity signing it. Who will perform that signing that you trust... CNN? Fox News? Google? THE US GOVERNMENT?!
- deckarep 6y agoIsn’t that the whole point of blockchain? A distributed ledger with no central authority so no single entity has the power to manipulate the history...
- irjustin 6y agoLet's say you can't manipulate history (it's possible btw). History is only as good as the one telling the story. In this case, who inserted the initial video? The FIRST person who inserted gets to say "this is truth". With Bitcoin what's being traded existed from the beginning. It was "mined" from the original pool. Here we all collectively said, "we trust that original pool not to be shifty". So because we trust that original source, we can trade these "items" confidently. Here the question isn't "Proof of work", it's "proof of source" which currently I cannot see a good solution for.
- chrisco255 6y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_authority https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_authority Proof of Authority. What matters is the reputation of the source. You can have varying degrees of trustworthiness based on an source's reputation, which is built up on the chain. For example, Craig Wright has faced a lot of backlash for claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. There's been no way for him to be proven wrong. Recently, someone signed a transaction with an address that hadn't moved Bitcoin since 2009 (implying it was an early adopter or contributor) and they called out Wright's lie (he had claimed to own that block). So Wright lost credibility. That's what we need. We need the ability to develop reputation on the blockchain and a way to punish that reputation economically for posting invalid data. EDIT (I'm out of HN replies): Reputation can be established based on a staking transaction. You create a smart contract for say, independent journalist Tim Pool. He signs it and stakes some amount and publicly declares that address to be his. He posts all his videos with a signature embedded that can be validated against that contract. The hardware itself (with algos signed by chip manufacturer) could also sign the video. An open source app could also sign. If you've got 3 signatures on a video HW, SW, and individual (associated with smart contract address) and a public blockchain timestamp, you've got a high degree of trustworthiness in that footage.
- soheil 6y agoI'm trying to figure out if this entire thread is a troll or serious
- jcims 6y agoQuite brave leaving random Internet generated content on the front page of the site.
- ta1234567890 6y agoIt would be really cool if it actually worked. Saw the recent videos and they are pretty much all a mess. Anyone knows of something like this that works? Links? Thank you.
- soheil 6y agoLooks like people were uploading odd videos/images due to lack of instructions. So I just added them: Select a headshot video of a person speaking and an image that you would like to bring to life. Make sure both image and the video are cropped so mainly the face is visible. (no rotated images/videos)
- Fiveplus 6y agoThe website is not opening for me.
- abeppu 6y agoThere's a huge and qualitative difference between the example video and the 'recent videos' below. The example video shows the face being stretched mostly around the mouth, and without extreme or sudden changes. Sure, it looks fake, but it seems coherent. It's almost the kind of thing a human would make in a comedy setting. But in the generated videos below, I see a lot of the issues we often get with generative models -- eyes or mouths flickering in and out of existence, a disappearing neck, parts of the background getting mixed with the face, etc. Sort of nightmare-ish, but not at the level of deep-dream dog-worms from 2014 or whenever. Were these even from the same method? Or is there some about the user-submitted photos that meaningfully differs from those used during training?
- totetsu 6y agoIt works with line drawings.. https://myvoiceyourface.com/video/?id=355fb6de15 https://myvoiceyourface.com/video/?id=355fb6de15
- forgingahead 6y agoThis just looks like a simple web app wrapper around First Order Model: https://github.com/AliaksandrSiarohin/first-order-model https://github.com/AliaksandrSiarohin/first-order-model The license for the code specifically states "Non-Commercial". Is your code something else? Also seems like you've double posted it. Edit: Your other posts also have a similar look - are you testing the waters for a viable biz model by adding web-app wrappers around ML papers who have published their code on Github? Not being accusatory or anything, just trying to understand.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tech-historian 6y agoYour pricing plans: https://myvoiceyourface.com/pay/ https://myvoiceyourface.com/pay/ $20/mo for 20 videos. While the technical output you've achieved is notable, just curious, who is your target audience? How do you see these videos being used?