7 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
Who 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    It 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 ago
I 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.
- grawprog 6y ago
  >I also don't think we truly understood how susceptible so many people are to made up nonsense until recent years That's not true, that's been the basis behind marketing and advertising since it existed. It's been fairly well known for a long time people easily believe nonsense.
- rglover 6y ago
  Just a few more months of these weight loss pills and I'm going to look like David Hasselhoff.
rexpop 6y ago
The question isn't "what's wrong with the technology," but rather "what harm can it do in the context of our societal development?"
three_seagrass 6y ago
Deep fake is photoshop for video and audio. Alarmists are going to opine the many ways it will cause the sky to fall but life will continue.
- edanm 6y ago
  Life will continue is a pretty low bar...
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    After the sky falls or how it has after the invention of photoshop? I'm referring to the latter.
Shish2k 6y ago
The key difference that you’re missing is “consent"

dchichkov 6y ago

Who 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 ago
The 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 ago
  It 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 ago

I 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.

grawprog 6y ago
>I also don't think we truly understood how susceptible so many people are to made up nonsense until recent years That's not true, that's been the basis behind marketing and advertising since it existed. It's been fairly well known for a long time people easily believe nonsense.
rglover 6y ago
Just a few more months of these weight loss pills and I'm going to look like David Hasselhoff.

rexpop 6y ago

The question isn't "what's wrong with the technology," but rather "what harm can it do in the context of our societal development?"

three_seagrass 6y ago

Deep fake is photoshop for video and audio. Alarmists are going to opine the many ways it will cause the sky to fall but life will continue.

edanm 6y ago
Life will continue is a pretty low bar...
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  After the sky falls or how it has after the invention of photoshop? I'm referring to the latter.

Shish2k 6y ago

The key difference that you’re missing is “consent"