5 ms·

That's exactly why there should be a distinction made. The term is too broad for a specific subset of deep fake technology that has matured far beyond its fun

That's exactly why there should be a distinction made. The term is too broad for a specific subset of deep fake technology that has matured far beyond its fun monster phase. Facemask and soundmask are good terms for a democratized warping of visual and audio data.

SubiculumCode 4y ago
Deep Fake tech needs to puncture the public's consciousness ASAP, diluting terms will be counterproductive
smoldesu 4y ago
Those terms seem a little broad to me. If the news reported that Barack Obama's likeness was used in a "facemask", nobody would know what happened. If they said it was used for a "deepfake", most people still probably wouldn't know what happened, but at least they could look it up and get a general idea. Considering how facemasking and soundmasking have multiple contextual meanings, I think deepfake is the perfect word. If you need more precision, then you can use the phrase "visual deepfake" or "audio deepfake".
- dkonofalski 4y ago
  I agree with this mostly in the sense that we need a specific word without any other context that defines what these are. I'm not sure that "deepfake" is that word but it definitely fits the bill based on what we're looking for. Deepfake has the advantage of being a word that's already in common usage that a good number of people recognize as "Oh, that's a fake done by a computer" so adding "audio" or "video" in front of it also fits the requirement of being easy to distinguish without being cluttered by other meanings or contexts. While we may be able to come up with a better word (in the same sense that a "tweet" is now unambiguous in context), I think it would be a misstep not to take the snowball that is "deepfake" and continue to use it in this context especially as a means to educate people on fake, computer-generated audio and video. People can barely keep up with tech buzzwords as it is so the fact that "deepfake" is already something in the public consciousness means a lot.
c22 4y ago
Wouldn't that be a voicemask?

SubiculumCode 4y ago

Deep Fake tech needs to puncture the public's consciousness ASAP, diluting terms will be counterproductive

smoldesu 4y ago

Those terms seem a little broad to me. If the news reported that Barack Obama's likeness was used in a "facemask", nobody would know what happened. If they said it was used for a "deepfake", most people still probably wouldn't know what happened, but at least they could look it up and get a general idea. Considering how facemasking and soundmasking have multiple contextual meanings, I think deepfake is the perfect word. If you need more precision, then you can use the phrase "visual deepfake" or "audio deepfake".

dkonofalski 4y ago
I agree with this mostly in the sense that we need a specific word without any other context that defines what these are. I'm not sure that "deepfake" is that word but it definitely fits the bill based on what we're looking for. Deepfake has the advantage of being a word that's already in common usage that a good number of people recognize as "Oh, that's a fake done by a computer" so adding "audio" or "video" in front of it also fits the requirement of being easy to distinguish without being cluttered by other meanings or contexts. While we may be able to come up with a better word (in the same sense that a "tweet" is now unambiguous in context), I think it would be a misstep not to take the snowball that is "deepfake" and continue to use it in this context especially as a means to educate people on fake, computer-generated audio and video. People can barely keep up with tech buzzwords as it is so the fact that "deepfake" is already something in the public consciousness means a lot.

c22 4y ago

Wouldn't that be a voicemask?