2 ms·
It's also worth noting that there far stupider methods that can (right now) generate much more convincing images than deepfakes. The simplest is taking an exist
by xg15 3y ago
It's also worth noting that there far stupider methods that can (right now) generate much more convincing images than deepfakes. The simplest is taking an existing, real picture and taking it out of context, lying about what the image shows, etc. This is actively being done in current conflicts, e.g. taking real footage from the Syrian civil war or from previous wars in Gaza and presenting them as photos from the current war. It works so well because there are enough absolutely horrible photos from the current war, so the fake photo appears plausible.
If AI-generated imagery should ever reach the level of being completely artefact-free and absolutely indistinguishable from real photos, then deepfakes will be about on par with the propaganda effect of today's real photos.
- ufmace 3y agoAgreed. Most of the propaganda videos I see around are more like things taken out of context. When you see a battle or atrocity video, it's hard to be sure where it was actually filmed, when it was actually filmed, who each side actually is, what happened before and after the camera rolled, what is happening outside the camera frame, etc. It seems everyone is doing this on both sides of the Russia-Ukraine war and Israel-Gaza war. Do we even need deepfakes when there's a practically unlimited amount of such video that can easily be cut deceptively, taken out of context, and misattributed to show anything you want?