4 ms·

The ability to create a realistic pornographic photo using someone else's likeness has been around for a long time; why does the medium of video make things dif

The ability to create a realistic pornographic photo using someone else's likeness has been around for a long time; why does the medium of video make things different? We've got to let go of our notion that video is reality and can't be faked. The time when that was true is definitely gone.

tambourine_man 6y ago
There's a difference between being possible and trivial. What once required professional artists can now be done by kids with lots of free time. That changes the dynamic and new problems arise.
- echelon 6y ago
  This is just the progression of technology. Photoshop made a lot of stuff accessible that previously wasn't. In a few decades, we'll merely tell the computers what we want to see and they'll make it for us. In fifty, they'll infer what we want and dynamically adjust. In a hundred years, all reality will be constructed. The trend is bigger and more important than the fear.
  - tambourine_man 6y ago
    Sure, and Photoshop doesn’t allow you to scan money, for instance. It’s still possible to counterfeit, just a bit harder. We can choose to embrace this change or take measures to make it less trivial.
michaelt 6y ago
There are plenty of things that society finds tolerable when they happen in small amounts, but problematic when they happen in larger amounts. That society ignored faked Britney Spears nudes in 1997 but complains about deep fakes today is no more inconsistent than someone who likes St Patrick's Day parades complaining when his neighbour turns his home into a 24-hour bagpipe practice centre.
- Invictus0 6y ago
  I'd like to consider your argument but I'd appreciate if you could come up with a better example than the one you've given. Why can society tolerate a pornographic painting or drawing of a celebrity, a photoshopped nude or pornographic photo, but not a faked pornographic video?

tambourine_man 6y ago

There's a difference between being possible and trivial. What once required professional artists can now be done by kids with lots of free time. That changes the dynamic and new problems arise.

echelon 6y ago
This is just the progression of technology. Photoshop made a lot of stuff accessible that previously wasn't. In a few decades, we'll merely tell the computers what we want to see and they'll make it for us. In fifty, they'll infer what we want and dynamically adjust. In a hundred years, all reality will be constructed. The trend is bigger and more important than the fear.
- tambourine_man 6y ago
  Sure, and Photoshop doesn’t allow you to scan money, for instance. It’s still possible to counterfeit, just a bit harder. We can choose to embrace this change or take measures to make it less trivial.

michaelt 6y ago

There are plenty of things that society finds tolerable when they happen in small amounts, but problematic when they happen in larger amounts. That society ignored faked Britney Spears nudes in 1997 but complains about deep fakes today is no more inconsistent than someone who likes St Patrick's Day parades complaining when his neighbour turns his home into a 24-hour bagpipe practice centre.

Invictus0 6y ago
I'd like to consider your argument but I'd appreciate if you could come up with a better example than the one you've given. Why can society tolerate a pornographic painting or drawing of a celebrity, a photoshopped nude or pornographic photo, but not a faked pornographic video?