3 ms·
I could be wrong, but I think OP was speaking more about filmed things that purport to be real-life events (i.e., evidence), rather than cinema.
by sillyquiet 5y ago
I could be wrong, but I think OP was speaking more about filmed things that purport to be real-life events (i.e., evidence), rather than cinema.
- WastingMyTime89 5y agoBut it's the same. I think that the fact that people are so scared of deep fakes show they are not critical enough of what they are already shown. Images lie all the time.
- sillyquiet 5y agoEh, maybe. People watching cinema "know" it's not real, even though propaganda is a thing I guess. Deepfakes won't alter anything with regard to that though, whether it's a deep-faked actor, a CGI monstrosity, or just a look-alike actor in makeup. although you are right about video 'evidence', editing, cuts, and carefully muted dialog can alter things to the point of being the opposite of what was being filmed - an unprovoked attack can become self-defense or vice-versa, etc. Again, deep-fakery is just another tool in that unsavory toolbox, not anything paradigm shifting.
- UncleMeat 5y agoDuring then 2004 election, doctored photos of John Kerry at an anti-vietnam-war protest circulated widely. They were a simple cut-and-paste job. The world of "people will make fraudulent media to sell a narrative" has already been here for decades.