4 ms·

I am inclined to agree with OP's view, but consider the following scenario: mass uploads of brutal deepfaked pornographic videos involving your likeness and/or

by Bakary 4y ago

I am inclined to agree with OP's view, but consider the following scenario: mass uploads of brutal deepfaked pornographic videos involving your likeness and/or that of your loved ones. What would your reaction be? Personally, I would find that very disturbing to the point where it would affect my life. This isn't even a hypothetical but a reality celebrities already face to some extent. I'd say the usage of the tech will stabilize, but it's also the case that we have dark days ahead of us.

thomastjeffery 4y ago
Rumors are not a new social pattern. We've handled them fine so far. Your discomfort is not enough reason to stop the free speech of everyone else. It never was, and never will be. The most effective way to deal with the damage of deepfakes is to make them ubiquitous and accessible. The more familiar people are with the ability to create deepfake content, the more prepared they are to think critically and distrust it. The average person already knows that still images aren't flawless evidence. The world didn't fall apart after the first release of Photoshop.
- croo 4y ago
  Is there any tool that can safely spot and decide between a picture of a deep fake and of a real one? So far the most reliable tool for that was a human moderator. With the new era of generated images there is no way to tell. You will simply have to distrust every image you see on the web.
  - thomastjeffery 4y ago
    Context. The more insulated a person is from the surrounding context of a video, the less leverage they have to determine its validity. It's just like speech: the farther gossip spreads, the less trustworthy it becomes.
dougmwne 4y ago
Sure, with 14 fingers and 3 ears. Someone could also use photoshop and get a better result. This is nothing new in terms of risk, just a new tool.
- Bakary 4y ago
  The quality of the material produced is evolving quickly, and the cost to entry is dropping as well. There's a difference in being able to produce one convincing piece of fake news or abusive material in a week or in 15 minutes. The world where a smartphone costs $5000 is wholly different from the one where it costs $500.

by Bakary 4y ago

thomastjeffery 4y ago

Rumors are not a new social pattern. We've handled them fine so far. Your discomfort is not enough reason to stop the free speech of everyone else. It never was, and never will be. The most effective way to deal with the damage of deepfakes is to make them ubiquitous and accessible. The more familiar people are with the ability to create deepfake content, the more prepared they are to think critically and distrust it. The average person already knows that still images aren't flawless evidence. The world didn't fall apart after the first release of Photoshop.

croo 4y ago
Is there any tool that can safely spot and decide between a picture of a deep fake and of a real one? So far the most reliable tool for that was a human moderator. With the new era of generated images there is no way to tell. You will simply have to distrust every image you see on the web.
- thomastjeffery 4y ago
  Context. The more insulated a person is from the surrounding context of a video, the less leverage they have to determine its validity. It's just like speech: the farther gossip spreads, the less trustworthy it becomes.

dougmwne 4y ago

Sure, with 14 fingers and 3 ears. Someone could also use photoshop and get a better result. This is nothing new in terms of risk, just a new tool.

Bakary 4y ago
The quality of the material produced is evolving quickly, and the cost to entry is dropping as well. There's a difference in being able to produce one convincing piece of fake news or abusive material in a week or in 15 minutes. The world where a smartphone costs $5000 is wholly different from the one where it costs $500.