17 ms·

This was an unsatisfying experience. The visual and audio fakes are easy to spot, while the texts are short enough and correct enough that you don't have enough

This was an unsatisfying experience. The visual and audio fakes are easy to spot, while the texts are short enough and correct enough that you don't have enough to go with in making a technical decision. I did however get them right by trying to figure out if the statement made sense in the context of the respective politician's general stance on the issue discussed. Update: Come to think of it, IRL text deep fakes don't even make sense. You can make up whatever quotes you like, you don't need GPT3 to do it for you.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
echelon 5y ago
> Come to think of it, IRL text deep fakes don't even make sense. You can make up whatever quotes you like, you don't need GPT3 to do it for you. Exactly. John Oliver pointed out a few weeks ago that the Russian media was using stock footage of other nation's military actions (Finland?) for propaganda. No need for deep fakes. The lowest effort lie can still work. Deep fake tech is the new photoshop. It's mostly used for good (art, memes, jokes with friends, Disney films). You can imagine a future where deep fakes are utterly indistinguishable from real life, but I think that people will learn to recalibrate themselves against the new technologies. It may even cause us to think more critically: people frequently chime in, "how is this not photoshopped?" on social media. They'll call out videos of explosions and physics as "looking fake". They'll have the same response to purported deep faked videos. All the same, I'm glad and appreciate that academic and policy folks are taking a close look at the technology. We need frameworks, ethics, and institutional familiarity.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> Come to think of it, IRL text deep fakes don't even make sense. You can make up whatever quotes you like, you don't need GPT3 to do it for you. They make sense for advertising and misinformation purposes. You don't have to pay a firm to drum up interest for a brand/product, theoretically, you'd be able to generate convincing conversations about the brand between bots on Reddit or Twitter, and do it at scale. Instead of paid posts on social media, you cut out the middle man and give the perception of community support for a brand/product, despite it being artificial. The last point goes for misinformation, as well. Want to start grassroots support for an idea/policy/person/group/place? Instead of paying teams of people to post on social media about it, you can automate the campaign and scale it with deep faked text. I don't think deep fakes are there yet for either purpose, though, and it isn't a given that they'll be good enough for them, either.
- bawolff 5y ago
  > They make sense for advertising and misinformation purposes. At that point its just standard propaganda. People have been doing that since roman times.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

echelon 5y ago

> Come to think of it, IRL text deep fakes don't even make sense. You can make up whatever quotes you like, you don't need GPT3 to do it for you. Exactly. John Oliver pointed out a few weeks ago that the Russian media was using stock footage of other nation's military actions (Finland?) for propaganda. No need for deep fakes. The lowest effort lie can still work. Deep fake tech is the new photoshop. It's mostly used for good (art, memes, jokes with friends, Disney films). You can imagine a future where deep fakes are utterly indistinguishable from real life, but I think that people will learn to recalibrate themselves against the new technologies. It may even cause us to think more critically: people frequently chime in, "how is this not photoshopped?" on social media. They'll call out videos of explosions and physics as "looking fake". They'll have the same response to purported deep faked videos. All the same, I'm glad and appreciate that academic and policy folks are taking a close look at the technology. We need frameworks, ethics, and institutional familiarity.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> Come to think of it, IRL text deep fakes don't even make sense. You can make up whatever quotes you like, you don't need GPT3 to do it for you. They make sense for advertising and misinformation purposes. You don't have to pay a firm to drum up interest for a brand/product, theoretically, you'd be able to generate convincing conversations about the brand between bots on Reddit or Twitter, and do it at scale. Instead of paid posts on social media, you cut out the middle man and give the perception of community support for a brand/product, despite it being artificial. The last point goes for misinformation, as well. Want to start grassroots support for an idea/policy/person/group/place? Instead of paying teams of people to post on social media about it, you can automate the campaign and scale it with deep faked text. I don't think deep fakes are there yet for either purpose, though, and it isn't a given that they'll be good enough for them, either.

bawolff 5y ago
> They make sense for advertising and misinformation purposes. At that point its just standard propaganda. People have been doing that since roman times.