3 ms·

> But the same knowledge that allowed them to identify a doctored video (like 50hz/60hz hum) could be in an adversarial manner to create a very convincing video

by JadeNB 4y ago

> But the same knowledge that allowed them to identify a doctored video (like 50hz/60hz hum) could be in an adversarial manner to create a very convincing video. I don't think it's automatically true that being good at spotting fakes means that you're good at generating fakes. For example, I suspect that I, like most humans, would be pretty good at spotting humanoid robots at the current level of terminology. However, that does not suggest that I would be particularly good at creating humanoid robots that would evade detection.

BoorishBears 4y ago
That's why I specified an example that requires a domain expert, you could have a very poorly done fake video that anyone can tell is fake too.
- JadeNB 4y ago
  > That's why I specified an example that requires a domain expert, you could have a very poorly done fake video that anyone can tell is fake too. But my example also satisfies that criterion. I (and most humans) am a domain expert at identifying humans, but that doesn't mean I would be good at faking a human.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I really didn't think I needed to specify domain expert at faking humans. I said video editor not video watcher.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > I (and most humans) am a domain expert at identifying humans, but that doesn't mean I would be good at faking a human. I don't think you're thinking about this enough. If you make one effort to create something that looks like a human, you'll do a terrible job unless you are already a skilled artist. But that doesn't support your claims here. We have a scenario where you've prepared a fake human and attempted to pass it off as real. The only way this could actually happen is if you looked at your own handiwork and it passed quality tests. And since you're good at identifying humans, that necessarily means that your fake human is a high-quality imitation. If it were terrible, you'd look at it and realize it couldn't be passed off as real.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

by JadeNB 4y ago

BoorishBears 4y ago

That's why I specified an example that requires a domain expert, you could have a very poorly done fake video that anyone can tell is fake too.

JadeNB 4y ago
> That's why I specified an example that requires a domain expert, you could have a very poorly done fake video that anyone can tell is fake too. But my example also satisfies that criterion. I (and most humans) am a domain expert at identifying humans, but that doesn't mean I would be good at faking a human.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  I really didn't think I needed to specify domain expert at faking humans. I said video editor not video watcher.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > I (and most humans) am a domain expert at identifying humans, but that doesn't mean I would be good at faking a human. I don't think you're thinking about this enough. If you make one effort to create something that looks like a human, you'll do a terrible job unless you are already a skilled artist. But that doesn't support your claims here. We have a scenario where you've prepared a fake human and attempted to pass it off as real. The only way this could actually happen is if you looked at your own handiwork and it passed quality tests. And since you're good at identifying humans, that necessarily means that your fake human is a high-quality imitation. If it were terrible, you'd look at it and realize it couldn't be passed off as real.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]