4 ms·
One one hand - I would say that everything that can be abused will be abused. On the other hand I would say, people (after a time of adaption) will learn to not
by sdoering 5y ago
One one hand - I would say that everything that can be abused will be abused. On the other hand I would say, people (after a time of adaption) will learn to not trust any moving image anymore.
Or any still image for that. But on the other hand - we are already theoretically and practically able to generate very convincing fake images, if we would want to. We could generate fake stills from a surveillance video (or a smartphone video) of a fake politician doing cocaine. Or interacting in a compromising way with a prostitute. Why do we not see much more of things like that?
Probably because it just might be more difficult to create a believable story around such a fake that does not break down when looking at the story more than 10 seconds.
So maybe the problem will not be as big? I don't know. I have no idea how easy it will become to create truly believable fakes.
Not sure how people will adapt and if trust in anything might break down in the process. But what I do not believe is that tech industry creating rules for itself will be a deterrent against abuse of any technology.
- robbedpeter 5y agoHow many people are convicted on 480p or less janky security footage? Making believable bad fakes is trivial when high resolution fakes are only moderately difficult. If it hasn't happened yet, it will soon - people will be submitting modified doorbell camera and home security footage to police. Or someone's compromised home network will record a deep fake overlay of otherwise legitimate footage, and the owner won't be complicit. In a situation with, say, a $5,000 or more item, or a schedule 1 or 2 substance stolen, a person could be subjected to damning evidence of them committing a serious felony, for potentially less difficulty and risk than swatting.