4 ms·

> I'm sure the primary use case of this technology is in film. (e.g. Disney populating background extras) If the recent history of tech is anything to go by, t

> I'm sure the primary use case of this technology is in film. (e.g. Disney populating background extras) If the recent history of tech is anything to go by, the most popular in-practice use case will be porn. All it will need is a corpus of training data: which it's safe to assume already exists. After that, deepfaking $WorldLeader$ doing something embarrassing is probably #2 or #3. Just in time for the US elections...

hugh-avherald 3y ago
I had a friend who worked in the Treasury Department and got access to government decisions and statistics releases before the general public did. He and his team would often make paper trades to try to guess the effect of these decisions. They were surprised how often they lost money. I suspect in the upcoming election, deepfaking the candidates doing something out-of-character would have a similar surprising effect.
- dzink 3y ago
  Political deep faking may be seen during elections, but imagine if someone faked corporate executives acting poorly to subvert/short stock prices. The sky is the limit on abuse.
  - api 3y ago
    People will have to learn that nothing can be believed no matter the medium unless there is a verifiable chain of custody to the information. This is the way it always was back when our primary means of communication was verbal and hand written. Everyone knew anyone could lie. We then had this bizarre period of time when you had certain types of media, especially photographs and video, that were extremely hard to fake convincingly. That period is now over and we have returned to the norm: you can't believe it unless the provenance of the information is known and the chain of custody is trustworthy. This needs to be drilled into people starting in elementary school.
    - irrational 3y ago
      > the chain of custody is trustworthy This seems like the hard part. How do I know that anything anyone is sharing is trustworthy? It's not like I'm going to trust any news org, government, non-profit, corporation, anonymous individual, etc.
    - KittenInABox 3y ago
      How do we verify/trust chain of custody of, idunno, "Mark Zuckerberg calling for the killing of all lefthanded people"? What I think will happen is that it'll be like what we have now but worse: some podcaster will make an offhanded remark about Mark Zuckerberg "saying some horrible stuff about lefthanded people" causing frantic TikToks about that it means killing lefthanded people, all based on a supposed "secretly recorded video" that no one can validate due to all of the noise.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      And the other side of this coin now is that people can do truly horrific things that can dismissed as created by AI.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      Back in that era (and continuing today) rumours were routinely believed and significant harm was done via rumour. Convincing people that photos and video are as believable as a rumour is not as helpful as it should be.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Convincing people that photos and video are as believable as a rumour is not as helpful as it should be. It is very helpful to some people, namely those parties who flourish among the ignorant and poorly-educated. Remember that the real goal of disinformation isn't to make you believe false things; it's to make you believe nothing.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > People will have to learn that nothing can be believed no matter the medium unless there is a verifiable chain of custody to the information. How are "people" actually supposed to know there's "a verifiable chain of custody to the information"? I think this case is instructive to the workability of that idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy. A major news organization was fooled by a forged document that was later identified as such by amateurs. How is any organization supposed to have "a verifiable chain of custody to the information" for leaked information? That's the avenue for a lot of important information, and without it you'll just have a lot more reporting on press releases.
  - throwup238 3y ago
    Investors will quickly learn to identify deepfakes if it becomes a regular thing. The damage will be everyone else on the ground: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157593
- throwup238 3y ago
  > I suspect in the upcoming election, deepfaking the candidates doing something out-of-character would have a similar surprising effect. One frontrunner is about to be convicted and his corporate empire dissolved while the other frontrunner is facing an impeachment inquiry and his son is about to experience the full brunt of the Capitol Hill muckraking process. Deepfakes aren't even going to register in this election (no pun intended).
  - specialist 3y ago
    Down ballot races are more vulnerable. Especially since we no longer have local journalism to help interpret events.
cainxinth 3y ago
> If the recent history of tech is anything to go by, the most popular in-practice use case will be porn Recent history? I’m pretty sure as soon as the camera was invented, someone took a nude picture with it.
- throwup238 3y ago
  And promptly put it up in the town square to get back at someone after a breakup.

hugh-avherald 3y ago

I had a friend who worked in the Treasury Department and got access to government decisions and statistics releases before the general public did. He and his team would often make paper trades to try to guess the effect of these decisions. They were surprised how often they lost money. I suspect in the upcoming election, deepfaking the candidates doing something out-of-character would have a similar surprising effect.

dzink 3y ago
Political deep faking may be seen during elections, but imagine if someone faked corporate executives acting poorly to subvert/short stock prices. The sky is the limit on abuse.
- api 3y ago
  People will have to learn that nothing can be believed no matter the medium unless there is a verifiable chain of custody to the information. This is the way it always was back when our primary means of communication was verbal and hand written. Everyone knew anyone could lie. We then had this bizarre period of time when you had certain types of media, especially photographs and video, that were extremely hard to fake convincingly. That period is now over and we have returned to the norm: you can't believe it unless the provenance of the information is known and the chain of custody is trustworthy. This needs to be drilled into people starting in elementary school.
  - irrational 3y ago
    > the chain of custody is trustworthy This seems like the hard part. How do I know that anything anyone is sharing is trustworthy? It's not like I'm going to trust any news org, government, non-profit, corporation, anonymous individual, etc.
  - KittenInABox 3y ago
    How do we verify/trust chain of custody of, idunno, "Mark Zuckerberg calling for the killing of all lefthanded people"? What I think will happen is that it'll be like what we have now but worse: some podcaster will make an offhanded remark about Mark Zuckerberg "saying some horrible stuff about lefthanded people" causing frantic TikToks about that it means killing lefthanded people, all based on a supposed "secretly recorded video" that no one can validate due to all of the noise.
  - Podgajski 3y ago
    And the other side of this coin now is that people can do truly horrific things that can dismissed as created by AI.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Back in that era (and continuing today) rumours were routinely believed and significant harm was done via rumour. Convincing people that photos and video are as believable as a rumour is not as helpful as it should be.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Convincing people that photos and video are as believable as a rumour is not as helpful as it should be. It is very helpful to some people, namely those parties who flourish among the ignorant and poorly-educated. Remember that the real goal of disinformation isn't to make you believe false things; it's to make you believe nothing.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > People will have to learn that nothing can be believed no matter the medium unless there is a verifiable chain of custody to the information. How are "people" actually supposed to know there's "a verifiable chain of custody to the information"? I think this case is instructive to the workability of that idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy. A major news organization was fooled by a forged document that was later identified as such by amateurs. How is any organization supposed to have "a verifiable chain of custody to the information" for leaked information? That's the avenue for a lot of important information, and without it you'll just have a lot more reporting on press releases.
- throwup238 3y ago
  Investors will quickly learn to identify deepfakes if it becomes a regular thing. The damage will be everyone else on the ground: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38157593
throwup238 3y ago
> I suspect in the upcoming election, deepfaking the candidates doing something out-of-character would have a similar surprising effect. One frontrunner is about to be convicted and his corporate empire dissolved while the other frontrunner is facing an impeachment inquiry and his son is about to experience the full brunt of the Capitol Hill muckraking process. Deepfakes aren't even going to register in this election (no pun intended).
- specialist 3y ago
  Down ballot races are more vulnerable. Especially since we no longer have local journalism to help interpret events.

cainxinth 3y ago

> If the recent history of tech is anything to go by, the most popular in-practice use case will be porn Recent history? I’m pretty sure as soon as the camera was invented, someone took a nude picture with it.

throwup238 3y ago
And promptly put it up in the town square to get back at someone after a breakup.