23 ms·
South Park creators have new political satire series with AI-generated deepfakes
- nautilus12 6y agoThis feels like its stolen from Kyle Dunnigan
- tremon 6y agoRegardless of the actual content or quality of the show, I hope this reaches a wide audience. All people should know about the technical capabilities of deepfakes.
- zeroping 6y agoIs this a method to innoculate the viewer against deepfakes? I wonder if part of thief goal is to specifically make people more aware?
- dleslie 6y agoMatt and Trey usually have an interesting side project on the go; where South Park pays the bills, shows like The Book of Mormon and Sassy Justice are their creative expression.
- yalogin 6y agoDeepfakes have the potential to turn the word upside down and cause utter chaos in the world. I don’t know how we are going to deal with it as a society, I think we are not equipped for it. In fact I fully expected trump to use it for the October surprise, but I guess he didn’t go there for whatever reason.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoThe catholic church survived the printing press. We'll be fine. Maybe not all of us will live to see it but society and its institutions will go on.
- MadSudaca 6y agoI hold a similar view. In my opinion Deepfakes will help accelerate the end of the democracy experiment, and you know what? good riddance. Only people that know you on, at least, a last name basis, should have political power over you.
- Robotbeat 6y agoIf you think the end of democracy will mean the end of people having power over you who don't know your name, I have some really bad news.
- LanceH 6y agoThe governments will get it right this time. They just need absolutely authority to ensure it goes smoothly for everyone.
- nemo44x 6y agoThe problem has always been accountability. If we can devise a system that includes accountability in the authority we could be on to something. Democracy has accountability by virtue of everyone having a vote. It’s a small power that everyone can use to hold their leaders to account. But it still allows people to hold arbitrary power over each other. If you can convince enough people, you can apply your morals and beliefs on others. For instance, lots of discrimination is a function of democracy and codifying oppression of certain people. We sit here furiously debating who can use a bathroom, who gets preferential treatment, who you have to interact with and a million other things. “Both sides” are bent on forcing people to behave a certain way and they use the power of the vote everyone has to accumulate power and make things “how they ought to be”. I think this could be done democratically but everyone has different interests. How do we find a common, singular interest and then optimize around that? Or maybe democracy is the “best bad system” and we just have to make do. I do believe with the hyper connected world we have today, cryptography, and resource abundance that we could transcend the modern system and discover liberation from each other to be ourselves and pursue truly enriching lives at a mass scale within local communities. And this means a different thing to different people. But just about everything in our modern system would need to be disposed of and recast.
- csmattryder 6y agoIn the early days, you could spot one by the lack of blinking because the model was trained on open-eyed images. Not sure if that's still the case, I'd be surprised if it was. Any time I see a "this is peak technology" comment, I'm always reminded of the PC gaming magazine cover showing the first Unreal game's graphics ("Yes, that's an actual PC screenshot!"). It looks awful now, but in the nineties, it blew us all away. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/5b/d9/d15bd9f544e6fd4bf7403ef918b5cc93.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d1/5b/d9/d15bd9f544e6fd4bf740...
- ip26 6y agoPeople didn't think it looked like reality. Back in that time, marketing used a lot of illustration to promote the game that had little connection to the in-game visualizations. So that cover is more saying, "This wasn't drawn by an artist".
- lagadu 6y agoThese do blink so it's no longer an issue. It's still not perfect because other than blinking the eyes have no expression to them, they're mostly still which is very unnerving once you start paying attention to that (it's also how you can tell a fake from a genuine smile). But we're at the point where unless you're looking for it, it's easy to believe.
- whatnojeez 6y ago> In fact I fully expected trump to use it for the October surprise, but I guess he didn’t go there for whatever reason. Because he's not the cartoon supervillain you think he is?
- pessimizer 6y agoHe has to be a supervillain, or else how could he have defeated the perfect team that ran the perfect campaign for the perfect candidate in 2016?
- opwieurposiu 6y agoHe has hunter's laptop, no reason to lie.
- codysan 6y agoPeople have had the opportunity to impersonate anyone they'd like over the radio for over 100 years and yet, here we still stand.
- tsomctl 6y agoCreate short deepfakes that can go viral and be so ridiculous that they're both entertaining and obviously fake. Obama advocating for a border wall. Al Gore lobbying for the oil industry. Steve Jobs advising against staring at a screen all day.
- iso1210 6y ago> Obama advocating for a border wall Would be used as evidence of how untrustworthy the Dems are. This video of two opponents endorsing each other cropped up last year. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-50381728 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-50381728
- mistermann 6y agoBiden advocating for single payer Medicare for all...the possibilities are endless!
- aiyodev 6y agoI think you're right. It sounds like their plans fell through: https://outline.com/FuBxnT https://outline.com/FuBxnT
- notanotherycom1 6y agoIf an obvious lie can consistently fool 80% of the players in among us (details below) then I can imagine deepfakes will fool just as many people despite how obvious it is. By obvious I mean almost 100% of the time it's a lie and people fall for it ------- I played maybe a hundred games of among us (they can be very short). The game is about one or more imposters trying to murder the rest of the crew but you'll have to be discreet and get/find people alone so you don't get voted off. When a body is found a meeting happens and you can lie (text chat) One problem is you don't want to accuse someone when you're an imposter because you immediately become suspicious. Most games will tell you if you voted off an imposter or not so they'll know you're lieing right away once game tells them they voted a non imposter. Most of the time you want to accuse noone, play dumb and act like you're everyeone else and saw nothing. I lost count when a guy doesn't accuse anyone for 20+seconds, get accused then claims the guy who found the body is an imposter and all these things he did that are suspicious. (why didn't you say it right away?!). Like 90+% of the time the guy being accused is the imposter who waited so he can feel the situation out. It's extremely obvious but maybe 70% of the time literally every player but me and the guy reporting the body is fooled. Which is far too many players at a far too high fool rate. It's so painful because it's so obvious. 90+% of the time in that scenario the reporting guy is telling the truth.
- iworkfromhome 6y agoMIT Technology Review The creators of South Park have a new weekly deepfake satire show. The character Fred Sassy, whose face is a deepfake of president Trump's, on the new show Sassy Justice. http://technologyreview.com.via.snip.ly/uxrgw8 http://technologyreview.com.via.snip.ly/uxrgw8
- fredley 6y agoI _think_ that the Michael Cain section is Peter Serafinowicz doing a Michael Cain impression (which has then been deepfaked), but it could be Lyre Bird or similar! The fact that I really can't make my mind up which it could be and the weird sense of doubt, to me, means that this has hit the mark perfectly. I've been thinking about this video a lot since I first saw it. It's genuinely very unsettling.
- pimlottc 6y agoNYT did an article about it [0], which has some details on the casting. Peter Serafinowicz is indeed doing his Michael Caine impersonation, and also does Trump. Other characters are done by Trey Parker and various family members. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/arts/television/sassy-justice-south-park-deepfake.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/29/arts/television/sassy-jus...
- pram 6y agoHe also did Michael Cain in his show, it’s extremely spot on. https://youtu.be/HdBZ3Pg0-OM https://youtu.be/HdBZ3Pg0-OM
- agency 6y agoWhy does it best? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFIQIpC5_wY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFIQIpC5_wY
- cableshaft 6y ago
- wodenokoto 6y agoAt first I thought the sub-headings were summaries of sketches from the show (which I thought was an odd thing to do) so imagine my surprise that the article ends with announcing a new release of PyTorch. The article consists of 5 different small articles. Does anybody know where the new show by Trey Parker and Matt Stone called Sassy Justice is airing? Is it a free Youtube series?
- stanrivers 6y agoThis feels like the start of something very bad - they are going to be upfront about the deepfakes... others are not. It’s going to get to the point where you can’t even say in a court room “well we have video of him doing this”. The fact that deepfakes will exist will erode confidence in even those things that are true. At the same time it will add additional fake situations to the conversation. Worst part is that eventually even the AI-powered counter measures are going to fail eventually. The moment a computer knows what gives away a hint that it is a deepfakes and not real, a computer can solve to not present that give away. The “good guys” and “bad guys” will iterate with each other until it is perfected.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoBut you can say "we have emails where he admits to doing this" in a court room, even though emails can be trivially faked. You just have to provide information about how you got the emails and how you know they're authentic. Is there a reason to expect video will be more problematic as it becomes easier to fake?
- harrisonjackson 6y agoChain of custody is a good argument for protections within a court room but court of public opinion is where the deep fakes will really run wild.
- conception 6y agoMaybe... photoshop detection hasn’t gone down that path as far as I know. I would imagine the problems of hiding detection in video to be a magnitude harder to hide?
- bogwog 6y agoTrue, but photoshop is usually done by hand. An AI-generated deepfake could maybe eventually be trained so that it outputs videos that are indistinguishable from the real thing.
- juskrey 6y agoTalking TV heads are already deep fakes. I'm glad computer fakes will finally erode the confidence of public into those people, from news anchors to presidents. Took almost a century to arrive here.
- pengaru 6y agoWhile I agree on your first point, the rest completely misses that the public will continue to be tribal and instead only believe the talking heads of their given tribe as authentic in a world rife with deep fakes. I fully expect the outcome to be increased tribalism, when faith in your tribe's leadership and information sources is the only source of comfort, confidence, and "truth". I don't think it will be the opposite where everything is questioned and critical thinking suddenly becomes prolific as you seem to imply.
- juskrey 6y agoLocal talking heads by definition can be punched into the face, seen in the local coffeeshop etc. They have skin in the game. Presidents don't.
- pengaru 6y agoWhat does that have to do with deep fakes pushing consumers of Fox News talking heads further into the arms of Fox News? Are you imagining if Tucker Carlson were punched in the face at his local coffee shop, he'd shut up? :rolleyes: His following would only grow larger and more supportive as he milked the controversy for all its worth.
- sacredcows 6y agoAwesome, maybe they'll add more climate change denialism into the mainstream /s
- craftinator 6y agoI'd be very interested in a show where they have deepfakes of politicians reading FOIA obtained emails that they wrote. It would be a positive use for a technology that has some pretty negative use cases =)
- sto_hristo 6y agoImpressive. A show that puts those figures in their real-world roles and surroundings, but satirizing everything they do will raise hell indeed. Something like House of Cards, but with satire and known figures.
- Cthulhu_ 6y agoContent aside, this is really interesting and I hope to see them do more attempts at humor using deepfakes.
- nemo44x 6y agoDark days ahead for Hollywood. How long until Silicon Valley eats that industry? I can imagine lifelike movies that render characters to the users preference in real-time. Talk about “representation”! I can imagine as well dialects, language, etc being rendered in real time to adapt to what the user prefers. You and another person could watch the same film and talk about the same story but have totally different experiences on what the characters looked like, talked like, and even said within some parameters. Making a movie with humans will be a prestige event like riding horses today or driving an ICE in the future. They don’t be able to compete with rendered film at a mass scale due to cost. Rendered films could be built and distributed cheaply and cost a fraction of a real movie to watch.
- skocznymroczny 6y agoThey would make their living by licensing the likeness of actors. Because you might have a great rendered movie, but most people will want a great rendered movie with Tom Cruise and Samuel L Jackson, not with nonane actors.
- utexaspunk 6y agoUntil you make a completely artificial persona that gets famous.
- marwatk 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_(2002_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_(2002_film)
- Nasrudith 6y agoReally that would be a good thing for "character actors" as it goes less on image and more on as what they need to contribute is creative to be a collaborator instead of a "living prop". What would be interesting would be the techniques used. Are they like animators or roleplayers focused on a single character to give them emotional touches in added details, quirks, and improved line changes or "greenscreened" such that what they actually look like is utterly irrelevant to their job?
- grawprog 6y agoI understand the worries behind deep fakes, but i'm going to be a bit facetious here, hasn't getting the most realistic, lifelike images always been the goal of computer graphics? Wouldn't deepfakes be the ultimate culmination of lifelike CGI. So lifelike it's indistinguishable from the real thing? Like for most of my life, this is the goal I keep hearing about. Now it's here, suddenly it's too real. I dunno just seems a bit funny to me. I've never been one of those graphics people myself, but it seems like a case of getting what you asked for, but being upset because it's different to how you expected it was going to be.
- dchichkov 6y agoWho knows, maybe out of that more attention will be paid to a message, rather than the person. Cults of personality had always been problematic. And, technically, this allows to grab the personality and dissolve the cult.
- InitialLastName 6y agoThe problem is that, in a representative democracy, voters are deciding on the person, rather than the message. If you have systems that increase the noise floor in the link between the two, you end up with an electorate that's less well-equipped to make coherent decisions.
- dchichkov 6y agoIt seems that voters are deciding mostly on charisma and cult of person, rather than the message. It'd be likely better, if that decision is made based on character - the pattern of thoughts of the person, rather than the charisma - attractiveness or charm. If it is possible to curb charisma/charm/cults of personality with realistic fakes, overall the effect might be advantageous.
- standardUser 6y agoI don't think anyone is disputing the idea that technology in this arena can/will/should advance, but rather that this specific set of technologies come with consequences that are, to many of us, absolutely terrifying. I also don't think we truly understood how susceptible so many people are to made up nonsense until recent years, so this particular kind of made up nonsense suddenly looks like a serious threat to social stability and cohesion.
- hospadar 6y agoThis is SO GREAT! I often feel deep existential dread about deepfakes and the lag between when they are viable (now) and when everyone stops trusting video that doesn't have some kind of rock-solid signed/encrypted/testified provenance (years from now or never?). What better way to educate the public about deepfake technology than with over-the top satire?
- 0xffff2 6y ago>years from now or never? I really don't think this is true. I hear stories about deepfakes on NPR pretty regularly. It would be very strange if a subject that has managed to gain some mainstream media traction was never internalized by a large percentage of the general public.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cacois 6y agoNPR listeners != large percentage of the general public. Also, people believe what they see, on an instinctual level. Hell, people believe what they hear, mostly. It will take a lot of education and time to untrain that.
- 0xffff2 6y agoI try to avoid consuming too much news, so I don't have much exposure to other news sources (and I only probably get an hour or two of NPR programming per week). Given the level of coverage I've heard on NPR, I would be pretty shocked if the subject hasn't received some coverage by most major media outlets.
- cm2187 6y agoAgree, video has always been a deeply manipulative media. Between editing, angles of shooting, music. The simple fact that you have a voice over that tells you something and that somehow because you are watching the video (what you watch is real) the voice over is also the truth. It will introduce a healthy dose of skepticism to that media.
- codysan 6y agoIn terms of using deep fakes to impersonate political figures, I do think we'll ultimately be okay on that front. I can see the entertainment industry being flipped on it's head and fabricated conspiracy theories hitting a fever pitch but with initiatives like CAI* cropping up, my hope is that there will be a digital wax seal of sorts to make sure what you're seeing is what the author intended. * https://contentauthenticity.org https://contentauthenticity.org
- nathanvanfleet 6y agoI am kind of waiting for both of them to become extremely right wing.
- BenGosub 6y agoFunny how the image caption is "Parker and Stone at a pre-corona premiere", when the photo is like, 20 years old, while the epidemic has been this year.
- Pxtl 6y agoLet's remember their politics, though - they used to market themselves as "both sides are bad" indpendants/libertarians, but now they're full-out Trumpers. I could see clips from this show making the rounds on lower-information parts of social media like Facebook that are already prone to being hoodwinked by conservative fake news like Alex Jones and the like. Professionally-produced deepfakes becoming the exact attack on democracy that other people in this thread are proposing will "innoculate" us.
- dleslie 6y agoSassy Justice is one long gut-shot against Trump. I'm not sure why you think conservatives would widely share this, unless you're supposing that they have a good sense of humour and humility. And yes, all politics and public figures warrant criticism and satire. Cast aside your sacred cows.
- will4274 6y agoShould be a headline from The Onion - Famous satirist uses 'satire' in public; crowd (including Pxtl) unaware; takes him literally.
- chaoticmass 6y agoI don't find the idea very funny or entertaining. If you have a funny parody show or something, it should be funny and entertaining without deep fakery. This seems like a gimmick that won't last long. Maybe it will do some good in bringing the issues of deep fakes into the wider public conversation though.
- toxik 6y agoI don't find the idea of poorly drawn cartoons funny by itself either, it's just a technique. It'll probably look pretty crappy most of the time. I imagine it'll be like South Park, as frequently has actual people in it, doing... odd things.
- newhacker2719 6y agoI think it's great, there is no problem with deep fakes as long as it is clear they are fakes. The entire political class including their donors are godawful and deserve to be made fun of.
- sega_sai 6y agoIs there some kind of private/public key signing technique for videos, when the camera creating a video signs it with some key providing a signature that can be verified for authenticity ? so you would be able to at least verify that the video was created at certain date on a certain camera ?
- ip26 6y agoIt's a good question, crytpo can be used for this sort of thing. It does preclude editing, unless you also establish a cryptographic trust chain where each successive editor also has a trusted key. Probably never going to work with cameraphone journalism, but if we're talking about newsroom & press conference footage you could make it happen.
- enchiridion 6y agoWhy not? Can't there be "TLS for cameras"?
- filleokus 6y agoExpect from editing, which, as you say should be able to be solved somehow (encrypt every frame?), I think the biggest problem is the equivalent of the "analog hole". How do you know if a signed recording is from the actual event, or from a camera being pointed at a screen in a pitch black room recording the playback of some malicious video trying to show said event?
- ip26 6y agoTrust. If the root signatory is CNN, you decide whether you trust CNN not to do that. Not really any different from other encryption. Your bank could be defrauding you on the back end despite the verified https session. But you trust they aren't.
- filleokus 6y agoWhy do we need to sign the video then? Isn't it enough for me to ensure that I have a secure TLS connection to https://cnn.com https://cnn.com? Maybe for external platforms? But then the challenge is just proving that https://www.youtube.com/user/CNN/ https://www.youtube.com/user/CNN/ is controlled by CNN. Much simpler than involving the cameras.
- chrisjc 6y agoI'm not entirely sure why it reminds me of the old UK show Spitting Image. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086807/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086807/
- crtasm 6y agoSpitting Image just started up again after 14 years. It's not amazing but worth a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_Image_(2020_TV_series) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_Image_(2020_TV_series...
- shannifin 6y agoCollider did some deepfake vids with celebrity impressionists which I thought were funny: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_6Tumd8EQI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_6Tumd8EQI
- jayd16 6y agoThe ramifications for misuse are real BUT I think making a studio that specializes in this type of work is genius. This technology could really change the industry in interesting ways. Faster iteration, less re-shoots, less extras. I guess you could even "storyboard" with rough deepfakes. Pretty interesting stuff. I wonder what else people will come up with if this stuff becomes a shrink wrapped industry standard.
- steerablesafe 6y agoHow will this work with IP laws around likeness? Is this fair use?
- psyc 6y agoWelp, Christmas came early. I couldn’t have hoped for a better satiric voice to exploit this particular tech.
- dirtyid 6y agoCan't wait the a pipeline between writing scripts to procedurally generated deep fake videos.
- codeulike 6y agoI watched a few mins of this because Peter Serafinowicz retweeted it but I completely didn't spot that they'd put Trump's face on the main guy (who I think is Peter?}. He looked vaguely familiar. And I figured I was missing something. So that means it's both very convincing and a bit too subtle for me?
- tobr 6y agoYouTube is trying to autoplay a Fox Business live MAGA event after this. I suppose they’re in the same category – misleading videos featuring Trump?
- samirillian 6y agoMary Poppins saying Fauci telling people to wear masks is a deepfake because Covid is fake...sorry, doesn't do it for me, esp. considering Fauci did, indeed, discourage people from using masks. Trump wrecked South Park the same way he wrecked the Daily Show. These people are past their time, their satire is no longer relevant; they too are missing the point.
- _jfoi 6y ago"Trump wrecked South Park the same way he wrecked the Daily Show. " Didn't take long for the MAGA brigade to find this post.
- samirillian 6y agoDef not MAGA.
- jascii 6y agoWow, that deep fake of Tom Cruise is just uncanny...
- interestica 6y agoWith this capability already in hand, it currently just feels like politicians are holding onto a potential video as some sort of 0-day exploit - waiting for the best moment to drop a video to really sway opinions.
- b0rsuk 6y agoI think the biggest casualty of deepfakes are going to be citizens. Record a video of police brutality or crime footage and it can all be shrugged off as a deep fake. TV stations and journalists can afford 'signed videos'.
- three_seagrass 6y agoThe type of person who will claim that has already been claiming 'false flag' or 'fake news' anyways. If someone has confirmation bias, they're still going to find ways to call it fake with or without deep fake tech.
- seppin 6y agoExactly, we've had a wave of "fake news" hysteria surrounding mostly accurate and true reporting. People don't need deep fake videos to believe lies, they do it with little to no supporting evidence anyways.
- epistasis 6y agoIt will be much more difficult to do deepfakes of that sort. Doing a good deepfake requires lots of training data. We might be able to get away with less training data a the tech progresses, but that is one area that will probably be most difficult to make progress in.
- Forbo 6y agoSeems like it would be pretty easy to add a way to sign a video using keys stored in a phone's enclave, surely Apple and Google are capable of doing so.
- njharman 6y agoDeep fakes typically are putting a face onto an actor (or other footage). Not faking an entire scene with multiple people, that's just called CGI/Animation. So you could easily take existing footage and change who it appears to be. But, 1) doing that to frame or unframe someone will be pretty niche 2) the original correct footage might still be findable 3) with access to the video files(which is going to be required in any legal situation), I'm sure there will be (exists for photos) algorytms that detect the editing the deepfake did to video file.
- readams 6y agoPeople are going crazy over deepfakes but we've had Photoshop for a long time and the world hasn't ended. We find ways to verify the content of photos through other means, such as their provenance.
- justEgan 6y agoSomething to consider is that we already had video when photoshop arrived, which is able to merit at least more authenticity than images do. Are there other mediums that's able to take this baton of authenticity now? I don't think so.
- patcon 6y agoi dunno, seems pretty significant to me. used to be that we only had to be skeptical of blurry newspapers photos, then detailed photos, then videos without people as giveaway, now highly detailed videos and audio aren't trustable. You don't think it seems significant that it's getting to a point where only "seeing with your eyes" is believing? All our systems of spreading information beyond our senses start to fail when we can't trust anything outside our perceived experience (or things brought to us by our trusted friends)
- paulryanrogers 6y agoBlurring around the face edges and mismatched lighting still give them away. Time will tell if the machines can overcome a trained eye.
- godelski 6y agoI think that is a bit of selection bias. Outside of what I've seen in papers Ctrl Click Face[0] has some of the best "in practice" deep fakes I've seen. The video in the main post is meant to be a joke. But these still aren't state of the art and really are just "some dude" that is doing this on their own. Not a production studio. What I think is different here is that we can think that: photoshop got so good that your average person can create convincingly fake content. At the end of the day deep fakes are part of photoshop (I mean they have neural filters now...). The question is more about ease of use. "Requires a team of highly trained special effects artists" vs "some dude in his basement and a shiny computer." And a big part is that you have prior knowledge. I'll be honest, I didn't realize it was Trump at first. Nor did a friend that I sent the video to that didn't have the prior that all characters were fake. Took him a good minute. That's a meaningful difference. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3pV-_iyT4U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3pV-_iyT4U
- 01100011 6y agoThis is the funniest thing Matt and Trey have done in years. I don't know if they still write the show, but it hasn't been funny to me in a couple years. This clip had me rolling. This feels inspired and I hope it creates more awareness in the general public.
- crankyoldcrank 6y agoWould've been funnier if it was Biden having the stroke. Much more believable. But a week before the election I guess only Trump is an acceptable target. Notice Biden didn't get mentioned a single time.. even when making fun of Trump's son-in-law, surely there's a better joke there about the picture of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe in his mouth that's more relevant to the topic. Or I guess, Matt and Trey know that's real ;) I give it a 4/10 for effort. The first half was pretty funny. After that, it's just Orange Man Bad. Comedy is always so boring when there's a Republican in the White House.. usually Matt and Trey are an exception but you can't win them all.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 1024core 6y agoJust post under your own account; why create a new one for this comment?
- p1necone 6y agoPresumably they're actually aware they're being an ridiculous troll and don't want to tarnish their main account.
- crankyoldcrank 6y agoI have no main account, I hate this site but I can't stop using it and I have no desire to be doxxed. I prefer to be able to post my opinions freely than to worry about my career. I create new accounts regularly on carrier NAT. What I'm aware of is that my opinions aren't appreciated on HN. Don't care. I have to read your shit opinions all day? Occasionally you'll have to read one of mine.
- malandrew 6y agoWho was Lou Chang? I didn't recognize who that was a deepfake of.
- dole 6y agoJulie Andrews
- feralimal 6y agoWell, personally I think deep fakes are a good thing. The reality is that 'we' were too trusting of what is presented on screens as true. Its the main piece that is used to manage and govern us. So, I welcome distrust on what we see on screens - that trust was always misplaced, and all about manipulation rather than information.
- koiz 6y agoAmazing.
- davesque 6y agoI actually think this will be the best way to immunize people against the effects of deepfakes. We need to make a sort of ubiquitous meme out of it.
- miguelmota 6y agoThe ad episode one with Mark Zuckerberg is pretty hilarious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-f7uBd8Gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep-f7uBd8Gc
- aaron695 6y agoThis came out a week ago. Why do we need to wait for the media to tell us it's interesting? It's the first attempt at mainstream commercialisation of Deep Fakes I think? It seems like a big deal. It's meta still, they are cheating a lot. But it's a working example of whether deep fakes might or might not work in the near future.
- airlinesreserva 6y agoBio Etihad cancellation policy - Read how to cancel etihad flight booking within 24 hour and how to get refund on cancellation.More info: https://airlinesreservationsdeals.com/etihad-airways/flight-cancellation-policy/ https://airlinesreservationsdeals.com/etihad-airways/flight-...