4 ms·

I'd argue that one of the biggest reasons deepfakes pose a threat is because a large number of people don't know they exist. It's just those e-mail chains from

I'd argue that one of the biggest reasons deepfakes pose a threat is because a large number of people don't know they exist. It's just those e-mail chains from the early 00s with poorly photoshopped images that lots of people thought were real. Now that the public knows broadly that digital manipulation is easy and they have seen it with their own eyes a ton things like that are believed less. Notice I do say less though, we still definitely have problems with misinformation being propagated with shitty-looking video/audio/photos that people should not believe in because they look/sound so inauthentic. All that to say, these tools clearly exist. I think the public is better served by them being pervasive and well-known rather than having them be locked up in Hollywood studios, research labs, and government agencies.

ethanbond 4y ago
Right but this means real content is less believable, too.
- rockemsockem 4y ago
  Indeed. Honestly that sounds like a bit of a plus too. A bit more skepticism should be applied to videos of talking heads in suits saying things. Especially when there's a huge panel of them.
- nonbirithm 4y ago
  I think a lot of information could be treated like pollution, in that it is easily created, spreads quickly, and becomes harder to clean up the more people are able to learn of it. I have to wonder if forging on like this will have a net positive effect on society, or if these kinds of developments are just fated by human nature. In a perfect world, what should have happened was a separate team inventing a reasonably accurate deepfake detector to the world before the deepfake producer gained prominence (differential technological development), but interest, productivity and excitement on the researchers' part to release their work first seems to have foiled that.
Shared404 4y ago
I would agree with this. It may be worthwhile to have someone create a bunch of deepfakes of politicians saying "This video has been faked" to drive awareness of this as a threat model. E: Forgot the key bit, it would need to be spammed all over Facebook/Instagram/Mainstream social media.

ethanbond 4y ago

Right but this means real content is less believable, too.

rockemsockem 4y ago
Indeed. Honestly that sounds like a bit of a plus too. A bit more skepticism should be applied to videos of talking heads in suits saying things. Especially when there's a huge panel of them.
nonbirithm 4y ago
I think a lot of information could be treated like pollution, in that it is easily created, spreads quickly, and becomes harder to clean up the more people are able to learn of it. I have to wonder if forging on like this will have a net positive effect on society, or if these kinds of developments are just fated by human nature. In a perfect world, what should have happened was a separate team inventing a reasonably accurate deepfake detector to the world before the deepfake producer gained prominence (differential technological development), but interest, productivity and excitement on the researchers' part to release their work first seems to have foiled that.

Shared404 4y ago

I would agree with this. It may be worthwhile to have someone create a bunch of deepfakes of politicians saying "This video has been faked" to drive awareness of this as a threat model. E: Forgot the key bit, it would need to be spammed all over Facebook/Instagram/Mainstream social media.