5 ms·

Deepfakes start ringing in voters' ears

32 points by xalindsay 3y ago

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Honestly while I have major problems with a lot of AI, specifically the political implications I don't think are actually all that bad. Specifically because if you talk to the extremists, they didn't become that way by way of convincing fake news: They became that way by extremely unconvincing fake news that suited their pre-existing prejudices. And I'm not going to both sides this in an attempt to look unbiased: there are certainly weird and shitty corners of the left, but by and large, misinformation trades on the right. Even many people on the right are aware of this, it's not a secret. People who are racists didn't need to hear Obama call his healthcare bill Obamacare to oppose it on those grounds, even as it benefited them: and we know that because Obama never called it that. Republicans did. People who are anti-trans due to the widespread (and wrong) belief that trans-people abuse children didn't need to see trans people abusing children, they needed to be told it was happening by a figure they trusted. People who hear the call phrases like "cultural marxism" have no idea what the hell that means, beyond "the things I don't like" and the thing that it's being attached to, if it isn't within their Things I Don't Like set currently, will be added to it with little thought or consideration for why it's there. Why all this happens is a larger topic that we don't really have the space here for and I'm probably already skirting HN's rules on politics pretty hard so I'll digress and just say: bigots are bigots, they were bigots before they heard whatever talking head they like say whatever really inappropriate and disgusting thing that they are now parroting, and now they're just a bigot that has that new thing to say. And humans are excellent at motivated reasoning: once they've decided a thing, like that Democrats eat babies to attain eternal life, you will be hard pressed to make them understand that they don't. It's probably why a lot of these same people also trend very well in religion: there's a subset of humanity that just really likes the idea of nice sounding bullshit that confirms whatever bullshit they heard before, and if you're willing to feed it to them, you can parlay that into attention and eventually, money. While I certainly oppose the use of AI tools being used to generate photorealistic evidence of Biden consuming babies on the weekend, and it will almost certainly be used for that, I have a hard time seeing that as really changing the field at all. There is a huge, huge section of the populace that would already believe that and having it rendered in perfect HD video would... certainly be upsetting, but in the age we're in, if you're aware that AI video can be created that way, to that quality, you would already assume this is a forgery, unless you were motivated enough to resist that thought. At which point it doesn't matter, it could be VHS quality that looked like it was taped next to a rare earth magnet and transmitted through a fun house mirror room, and Biden had seventeen fingers: you'd still believe it.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Specifically because if you talk to the extremists, they didn't become that way by way of convincing fake news: They became that way by extremely unconvincing fake news that suited their pre-existing prejudices. If it all it did was agree with pre-existing prejudices, that's not how they got that way. And, IME, post political extrenists didn't get that way from fake news at all, but the problem with convincint fake news (whether AI is involved or not) isn’t that it creates extremists or otherwise influences ideology, but the reactions it creates in people applying their non-extremist ideology through the lens of false factual premises.
  - hooverd 3y ago
    Extremists falling for their own outrage bait is a common occurrence.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    With all due respect, the entire notion of radicalization would seem to counter-indicate your point.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      The entire “notion of radicalization” isn't centered in radicalization by fake news. Ideological indoctrination isn’t primarily based on news, true or false. It doesn't work from views on fact to get people to adopt extreme values.
roddylindsay 3y ago
"Because voice calls are classified as a Title II telecommunications service (vs. Title I services like text messages and broadband), carriers can’t and don’t listen in. Specifically, the classification means they can’t filter or block calls based on suspicious content (or, hypothetically, AI audio watermarks)." This is the catch-22 of privacy: it's great that AT&T can't snoop on my calls, but that means malicious robocall attacks can only be detected and prevents using signals other than content, which makes it tremendously more challenging.
- 58028641 3y ago
  Can’t the classification be implemented on device?
  - roddylindsay 3y ago
    A landline phone obviously wouldn't have such capabilities. As far as smartphones, I doubt Apple / Google would build classifiers into their default phone applications for obvious privacy reasons.
- wizofaus 3y ago
  I wouldn't think the problem was that hard to solve if there were tighter guidelines around how phone numbers were allocated and a simple reliable method of reporting fraud to a central agency. Though I'm not sure we know the real reason scams/unsolicited marketing now seem to make up the majority of all phone calls - it certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  Maybe the NSA can block them for you
brucethemoose2 3y ago
Also consider the case of false flag scandals. Audio recordings used to be reasonably hard evidence for journalists and police, and its now barely more reliable than word of mouth.
13years 3y ago
All roads of AI advancement seem to be converging on dystopian outcomes. It is not just elections, but the complete end of privacy which also means the end of free societies which I wrote about as well here. https://www.mindprison.cc/p/ai-end-of-privacy-end-of-sanity https://www.mindprison.cc/p/ai-end-of-privacy-end-of-sanity I still haven't seen any proposals that have any high confidence for counter balance. If AI solves all disease, is it still worth it if we are living in nice gilded cages?
- TaylorAlexander 3y ago
  You’re telling me you got a nice gilded cage?
  - 13years 3y ago
    lol, not so much right now. But everyone who is worried about AI existential risk wiping out humanity, I'm not sure they have considered that an all powerful AI could easily create a mind virus to control everyone. Why not, billions of resources at your disposal until not needed. You would be perfectly happy doing the AI's bidding as it rewires your brain to get a dopamine boost for your obedience.
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      This is a genuine possibility but before that will happen, the humans that have always been trying to control us will have ever more powerful tools, and generally I think that concern should be front of mind over self aware AGI taking over. The Murdochs and Zucks and Musks of the world control huge platforms which can easily tip sentiment. Better AI tools to track opinions and guide their viewers wherever the platform owners want is a more immediate concern, and hand-wringing over all-powerful AI which is a long ways away is a great way to avoid addressing these more human and more immediate issues. We do not actually know if an all powerful AI would try to manipulate humanity (it absolutely might, but we do not know), but we know for a fact there are a lot of people right now already trying to do that, and AI tools will make it easier for them to do so.
goshx 3y ago
I used to worry about the use of deepfakes in elections, but in a country (USA) where you can see and hear the truth straight out of the horse's (Trump) mouth and lots of people still support him, I just don't care anymore. We are at an inflection point, and democracy here is about to be something from the past.
fluxem 3y ago
No, they don’t. Vocal impersonators are a thing since forever
- goshx 3y ago
  Without AI, you need someone to be the impersonator. With AI, anyone can be an impersonator.
not-my-account 3y ago
The best solution I can think of would be to start mass producing audio deepfakes of politicians that are clearly ridiculous, to the point where people know that it’s fake. Flood the market with that, and people’s trust will degrade, and therefore the nefarious deepfakes will be taken less seriously.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  I'm kinda shocked politicians haven't started doing this themselves.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Probably something for domestic intelligence agencies to do with their local politicians. It does seem like a reasonable defense. Release the ridiculous deepfake covertly so it's assumed to have been done by some rando for the lulz and then release a statement a few days later talking about the dangers in a world occupied by deepfakes. It's kinda got me curious: what recording would be so obviously fake?
    - mksybr 3y ago
      Bhutanese shadow garden grown dark evil pack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4hR3NQmCZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4hR3NQmCZU
      - sebzim4500 3y ago
        Wait, that wasn't real?
  - AlotOfReading 3y ago
    That's a dangerous game. There is nothing a fake could say, no matter how ridiculous, that wouldn't convince somebody that the real person said it. Maybe they believe the politician already kicks puppies, maybe they hear what they think is a "reasonable" (yet still wrong) interpretation instead, or maybe they're just stupid. Doesn't matter, because now they're going to play telephone with their friends and family about the stupid thing the politician didn't actually say. Even if it works, what's the upside? Now your brand is associated with negativity and people are thinking "maybe they didn't say that, but why take the risk? X is a safer bet".
morkalork 3y ago
We're already living in a post truth society. Are better quality fakes really going to change anything?
swader999 3y ago
The real politicians and their scripts are so ludicrous as it is. A deep fake might be an improvement.

32 points by xalindsay 3y ago

Honestly while I have major problems with a lot of AI, specifically the political implications I don't think are actually all that bad. Specifically because if you talk to the extremists, they didn't become that way by way of convincing fake news: They became that way by extremely unconvincing fake news that suited their pre-existing prejudices. And I'm not going to both sides this in an attempt to look unbiased: there are certainly weird and shitty corners of the left, but by and large, misinformation trades on the right. Even many people on the right are aware of this, it's not a secret. People who are racists didn't need to hear Obama call his healthcare bill Obamacare to oppose it on those grounds, even as it benefited them: and we know that because Obama never called it that. Republicans did. People who are anti-trans due to the widespread (and wrong) belief that trans-people abuse children didn't need to see trans people abusing children, they needed to be told it was happening by a figure they trusted. People who hear the call phrases like "cultural marxism" have no idea what the hell that means, beyond "the things I don't like" and the thing that it's being attached to, if it isn't within their Things I Don't Like set currently, will be added to it with little thought or consideration for why it's there. Why all this happens is a larger topic that we don't really have the space here for and I'm probably already skirting HN's rules on politics pretty hard so I'll digress and just say: bigots are bigots, they were bigots before they heard whatever talking head they like say whatever really inappropriate and disgusting thing that they are now parroting, and now they're just a bigot that has that new thing to say. And humans are excellent at motivated reasoning: once they've decided a thing, like that Democrats eat babies to attain eternal life, you will be hard pressed to make them understand that they don't. It's probably why a lot of these same people also trend very well in religion: there's a subset of humanity that just really likes the idea of nice sounding bullshit that confirms whatever bullshit they heard before, and if you're willing to feed it to them, you can parlay that into attention and eventually, money. While I certainly oppose the use of AI tools being used to generate photorealistic evidence of Biden consuming babies on the weekend, and it will almost certainly be used for that, I have a hard time seeing that as really changing the field at all. There is a huge, huge section of the populace that would already believe that and having it rendered in perfect HD video would... certainly be upsetting, but in the age we're in, if you're aware that AI video can be created that way, to that quality, you would already assume this is a forgery, unless you were motivated enough to resist that thought. At which point it doesn't matter, it could be VHS quality that looked like it was taped next to a rare earth magnet and transmitted through a fun house mirror room, and Biden had seventeen fingers: you'd still believe it.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Specifically because if you talk to the extremists, they didn't become that way by way of convincing fake news: They became that way by extremely unconvincing fake news that suited their pre-existing prejudices. If it all it did was agree with pre-existing prejudices, that's not how they got that way. And, IME, post political extrenists didn't get that way from fake news at all, but the problem with convincint fake news (whether AI is involved or not) isn’t that it creates extremists or otherwise influences ideology, but the reactions it creates in people applying their non-extremist ideology through the lens of false factual premises.
- hooverd 3y ago
  Extremists falling for their own outrage bait is a common occurrence.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  With all due respect, the entire notion of radicalization would seem to counter-indicate your point.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    The entire “notion of radicalization” isn't centered in radicalization by fake news. Ideological indoctrination isn’t primarily based on news, true or false. It doesn't work from views on fact to get people to adopt extreme values.

roddylindsay 3y ago

"Because voice calls are classified as a Title II telecommunications service (vs. Title I services like text messages and broadband), carriers can’t and don’t listen in. Specifically, the classification means they can’t filter or block calls based on suspicious content (or, hypothetically, AI audio watermarks)." This is the catch-22 of privacy: it's great that AT&T can't snoop on my calls, but that means malicious robocall attacks can only be detected and prevents using signals other than content, which makes it tremendously more challenging.

58028641 3y ago
Can’t the classification be implemented on device?
- roddylindsay 3y ago
  A landline phone obviously wouldn't have such capabilities. As far as smartphones, I doubt Apple / Google would build classifiers into their default phone applications for obvious privacy reasons.
wizofaus 3y ago
I wouldn't think the problem was that hard to solve if there were tighter guidelines around how phone numbers were allocated and a simple reliable method of reporting fraud to a central agency. Though I'm not sure we know the real reason scams/unsolicited marketing now seem to make up the majority of all phone calls - it certainly wasn't the case 20 years ago.
candiddevmike 3y ago
Maybe the NSA can block them for you

brucethemoose2 3y ago

Also consider the case of false flag scandals. Audio recordings used to be reasonably hard evidence for journalists and police, and its now barely more reliable than word of mouth.

13years 3y ago

All roads of AI advancement seem to be converging on dystopian outcomes. It is not just elections, but the complete end of privacy which also means the end of free societies which I wrote about as well here. https://www.mindprison.cc/p/ai-end-of-privacy-end-of-sanity https://www.mindprison.cc/p/ai-end-of-privacy-end-of-sanity I still haven't seen any proposals that have any high confidence for counter balance. If AI solves all disease, is it still worth it if we are living in nice gilded cages?

TaylorAlexander 3y ago
You’re telling me you got a nice gilded cage?
- 13years 3y ago
  lol, not so much right now. But everyone who is worried about AI existential risk wiping out humanity, I'm not sure they have considered that an all powerful AI could easily create a mind virus to control everyone. Why not, billions of resources at your disposal until not needed. You would be perfectly happy doing the AI's bidding as it rewires your brain to get a dopamine boost for your obedience.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    This is a genuine possibility but before that will happen, the humans that have always been trying to control us will have ever more powerful tools, and generally I think that concern should be front of mind over self aware AGI taking over. The Murdochs and Zucks and Musks of the world control huge platforms which can easily tip sentiment. Better AI tools to track opinions and guide their viewers wherever the platform owners want is a more immediate concern, and hand-wringing over all-powerful AI which is a long ways away is a great way to avoid addressing these more human and more immediate issues. We do not actually know if an all powerful AI would try to manipulate humanity (it absolutely might, but we do not know), but we know for a fact there are a lot of people right now already trying to do that, and AI tools will make it easier for them to do so.

goshx 3y ago

I used to worry about the use of deepfakes in elections, but in a country (USA) where you can see and hear the truth straight out of the horse's (Trump) mouth and lots of people still support him, I just don't care anymore. We are at an inflection point, and democracy here is about to be something from the past.

fluxem 3y ago

No, they don’t. Vocal impersonators are a thing since forever

goshx 3y ago
Without AI, you need someone to be the impersonator. With AI, anyone can be an impersonator.

not-my-account 3y ago

The best solution I can think of would be to start mass producing audio deepfakes of politicians that are clearly ridiculous, to the point where people know that it’s fake. Flood the market with that, and people’s trust will degrade, and therefore the nefarious deepfakes will be taken less seriously.

ceejayoz 3y ago
I'm kinda shocked politicians haven't started doing this themselves.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  Probably something for domestic intelligence agencies to do with their local politicians. It does seem like a reasonable defense. Release the ridiculous deepfake covertly so it's assumed to have been done by some rando for the lulz and then release a statement a few days later talking about the dangers in a world occupied by deepfakes. It's kinda got me curious: what recording would be so obviously fake?
  - mksybr 3y ago
    Bhutanese shadow garden grown dark evil pack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4hR3NQmCZU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4hR3NQmCZU
    - sebzim4500 3y ago
      Wait, that wasn't real?
- AlotOfReading 3y ago
  That's a dangerous game. There is nothing a fake could say, no matter how ridiculous, that wouldn't convince somebody that the real person said it. Maybe they believe the politician already kicks puppies, maybe they hear what they think is a "reasonable" (yet still wrong) interpretation instead, or maybe they're just stupid. Doesn't matter, because now they're going to play telephone with their friends and family about the stupid thing the politician didn't actually say. Even if it works, what's the upside? Now your brand is associated with negativity and people are thinking "maybe they didn't say that, but why take the risk? X is a safer bet".

morkalork 3y ago

We're already living in a post truth society. Are better quality fakes really going to change anything?

swader999 3y ago

The real politicians and their scripts are so ludicrous as it is. A deep fake might be an improvement.