34 ms·

How soon though? 2 years? 10? 50? He starts by saying this won't happen soon, _maybe_ ever.

by sottol 2y ago

moralestapia 2y ago
I'd bet that in two years you could do something equivalent to that "make me a new episode" use case. I already see really convincing deep fakes on Facebook, etc., it's not an impossible problem anymore, it's just a matter of increasing their quality.
- dham 2y ago
  Convincing deepfakes is a strong word. There are also people out there who think modern CG looks good, too. There will always be people who are ultra-sensitive to things like this. So convincing might take 2x as long for some vs others.
  - ruthmarx 2y ago
    > There will always be people who are ultra-sensitive to things like this. There are always people that claim to be...
    - dham 2y ago
      True, but it doesn't change the fact that some percentage of the population is.
      - ruthmarx 2y ago
        I'm kind of skeptical, just because I've seen people claiming things are CGI when they were not, or claiming the CGI was crap when it was fine. Reminds me of photographs asking people if photos were photoshopped or not and people generally guessed wrong about half the time.
  - sumtechguy 2y ago
    There is a musical artist on YT talking about this. He was sitting there listening to AI generated music. He said he could not tell and thought it was decent. His kid and wife however could and aske why he was listing to 'ai music'. That is a professional musician who couldn't tell. My wife can hear something she can not describe that makes her say 'it sucks'. Meanwhile I listen and think it is OK. It is like these things have tweaked that audio/visual hallucinations people see and hear like yannie/laural or the gold/blue dress. The corridor crew noticed something about AI generated pictures. They all seem to have similar lighting and chroma. So they have this 'look' to them (once you see it). That is because the pictures start off as a random noise picture and coalesce into a picture. So the lighting stays the same on just about every pixel.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Is there any deep fake video that is possibly convincing that is 100% generated synthetically? All the deep fakes I've seen that don't look incredibly weird at first glance essentially re-use clips (like Back To The Future[0]) and they replacement an element, like a face, but the rest of the footage already exists. If you look closely though, particularly at the mouth of the video I linked, something isn't quite natural about it still. Same deal with this Taylor Swift fake[1] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OJnkJqkyio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OJnkJqkyio [1]: https://x.com/McAfee/status/1745226438641602866 https://x.com/McAfee/status/1745226438641602866
- xenospn 2y ago
  Getting to 90% is easy. The last 10% can take 50 years. Don't forget we're the product of evolution and subconsciously look for things current technology will not be able to replicate.

How soon though? 2 years? 10? 50? He starts by saying this won't happen soon, _maybe_ ever.

by sottol 2y ago

How soon though? 2 years? 10? 50? He starts by saying this won't happen soon, _maybe_ ever.

I'd bet that in two years you could do something equivalent to that "make me a new episode" use case. I already see really convincing deep fakes on Facebook, etc., it's not an impossible problem anymore, it's just a matter of increasing their quality.

dham 2y ago
Convincing deepfakes is a strong word. There are also people out there who think modern CG looks good, too. There will always be people who are ultra-sensitive to things like this. So convincing might take 2x as long for some vs others.
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  > There will always be people who are ultra-sensitive to things like this. There are always people that claim to be...
  - dham 2y ago
    True, but it doesn't change the fact that some percentage of the population is.
    - ruthmarx 2y ago
      I'm kind of skeptical, just because I've seen people claiming things are CGI when they were not, or claiming the CGI was crap when it was fine. Reminds me of photographs asking people if photos were photoshopped or not and people generally guessed wrong about half the time.
- sumtechguy 2y ago
  There is a musical artist on YT talking about this. He was sitting there listening to AI generated music. He said he could not tell and thought it was decent. His kid and wife however could and aske why he was listing to 'ai music'. That is a professional musician who couldn't tell. My wife can hear something she can not describe that makes her say 'it sucks'. Meanwhile I listen and think it is OK. It is like these things have tweaked that audio/visual hallucinations people see and hear like yannie/laural or the gold/blue dress. The corridor crew noticed something about AI generated pictures. They all seem to have similar lighting and chroma. So they have this 'look' to them (once you see it). That is because the pictures start off as a random noise picture and coalesce into a picture. So the lighting stays the same on just about every pixel.
no_wizard 2y ago
Is there any deep fake video that is possibly convincing that is 100% generated synthetically? All the deep fakes I've seen that don't look incredibly weird at first glance essentially re-use clips (like Back To The Future[0]) and they replacement an element, like a face, but the rest of the footage already exists. If you look closely though, particularly at the mouth of the video I linked, something isn't quite natural about it still. Same deal with this Taylor Swift fake[1] [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OJnkJqkyio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OJnkJqkyio [1]: https://x.com/McAfee/status/1745226438641602866 https://x.com/McAfee/status/1745226438641602866
xenospn 2y ago
Getting to 90% is easy. The last 10% can take 50 years. Don't forget we're the product of evolution and subconsciously look for things current technology will not be able to replicate.