3 ms·
It's already good enough to not be really obviously fake.
by Madmallard 3y ago
It's already good enough to not be really obviously fake.
- idle_zealot 3y agoI don't think that's what concord meant. They meant that as convincing fake imagery becomes easier to produce and more common, people will learn that any image could easily be faked, regardless of how photorealistic it appears. i.e. people will lose all trust in "photographs", so fake images will lose their efficacy as blackmail.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoI mean this isn't new, photographs can be doctored and have been for... as long as photos have been around pretty much. It doesn't matter if they're fake or not for the purposes of blackmail though.
- idle_zealot 3y agoCurrently, with skill and effort, a photo can be faked. People know that a given photo may be fake, but generally expect photos to be real unless they are motivated to think otherwise. The idea is that once the ease of producing a fake reaches a certain threshold (a layman can go to a website and type "$PERSON engaging in $QUESTIONABLE_ACTIVITY") then fake photos will greatly outnumber real ones and trust in photographs will fully erode.
- exodust 3y agoExactly. The "victim" of a deepfake simply needs to say "it's fake". The burden of integrity is then on whoever is indulging the fake images, spreading them or raising questions about them. Added benefit, as you say, is that any image can now be faked. So even a real photo of someone caught in the act, could be dismissed by the victim as fake if they wanted to make the problem go away.