4 ms·

"The intent of deepfake software is clearly either fraud or development of deepfake detection tools. " I think there are a ton of positive, creative uses of it

"The intent of deepfake software is clearly either fraud or development of deepfake detection tools. " I think there are a ton of positive, creative uses of it. For instance de-aging an actor for a flashback sequence, with their permission. Deepfake software can potentially do this way cheaper than the state of the art, such as the young Tony Stark / Peter Quill's dad / Leia. And eventually, it should be able to do it better. When the technology is truly indetectable, it will be used all over the place in filmmaking and even video games.

TimTheTinker 6y ago
I stand corrected -- you're clearly right.
savingsPossible 6y ago
Do we need to consider only intent, or can we extrapolate probable futures? Because then I worry about deepfakes making actors obsolete (as we have made obsolete so many other professions)
- robbrown451 6y ago
  Maybe I'm older than you, but I remember being worried about those newfangled bulldozers making us ditchdiggers obsolete. :) Or how about movies making stage actors (and set builders, etc) obsolete? I mean, when you only have to act it out once and millions can see your performance, as opposed to actors performing shows every night in small venues in towns all over the country, it puts a lot of people out of work. There are pretty few people today making a living as actors. And of course photography put portrait painters out of work. And high quality cameras in cell phones probably put a lot of photographers out of work. What might happen is that there will still be actors, but all they have to do is act, not be beautiful. They can use a model for the beautiful part. And then you can have talented people on computers merging it all together. I do like the idea of bedroom production of movies, which can happen if you don't need actors. Previously, if you want to be a film director, you needed to be born into a rich family, and then after extremely expensive film school, you needed to get big money to finance your movies. So there's that.

TimTheTinker 6y ago

I stand corrected -- you're clearly right.

savingsPossible 6y ago

Do we need to consider only intent, or can we extrapolate probable futures? Because then I worry about deepfakes making actors obsolete (as we have made obsolete so many other professions)

robbrown451 6y ago
Maybe I'm older than you, but I remember being worried about those newfangled bulldozers making us ditchdiggers obsolete. :) Or how about movies making stage actors (and set builders, etc) obsolete? I mean, when you only have to act it out once and millions can see your performance, as opposed to actors performing shows every night in small venues in towns all over the country, it puts a lot of people out of work. There are pretty few people today making a living as actors. And of course photography put portrait painters out of work. And high quality cameras in cell phones probably put a lot of photographers out of work. What might happen is that there will still be actors, but all they have to do is act, not be beautiful. They can use a model for the beautiful part. And then you can have talented people on computers merging it all together. I do like the idea of bedroom production of movies, which can happen if you don't need actors. Previously, if you want to be a film director, you needed to be born into a rich family, and then after extremely expensive film school, you needed to get big money to finance your movies. So there's that.