Hm.
What other post did I specifically reference, Benita?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Fake-porn videos are being weaponized to harass and humiliate women: ‘Everybody is a potential target’
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
Deep fakes are easily noticeable and no one is going to deep fake someones face to a home movie off pornhub because iirc you need a very clear video to do it. Also what's the difference between this and a really good photoshop? If photoshops "can't" be used like this then deepfakes can't either. "Obviously this video of my buddys wife getting fucked hardcore style in what looks like a studio level porn video is very real and not fake at all"
Post history = cross thread drama.
You maligned a guy for his post history. Benita brings up that fact, and you suddenly say, "Don't bring up
Then, minutes later in this same thread, you post a .gif that says "True to form." to malign Benita. I.e. "It fits his post history."
Only you can bring up post histories, right?
Looking forward to seeing RedMercury twist their way out of this one.
It really is.
I lose my mind every time I encounter another thread about deepfakes. On the list of "existential crises I expect to see in my lifetime", Deepfakes are pretty far below "climate change", "ethnonationalism" and "automation of labor", but when I'm reminded about them I start panicking like the sky is falling. It's just so overwhelming.
It depends. Some of them absolutely can be others you can clearly see that its a fake. Its probably convincing enough especially to people who don't have a trained eye on what to look for.
You can make a video featuring Obama talking about jihad, sharia law, and beheading Christians. With his face and with his voice. Think about what this would've done in 2008.
Society has needed a new ethical paradigm since, at latest, the rise of social media. We're almost entirely unprepared for a world where anyone with a device can falsify reality. The public has enough trouble distinguishing fact from fiction when events are recorded accurately.
Career-ruining life-destroying harassment catalyzed by out-of-context tweets, decade-old online postings, or petty political grievances is already far too common and within the means of almost anyone to instigate.
We'll need strict regulations and new laws to discourage companies and individuals from exploiting tech that can essentially turn anyone into a digital puppet. Maybe more important, our norms will have to evolve with our technology to account for this new reality. It could take decades of scandal and unjustified outrage to reach the tipping point where the jury of public opinion favors evidence over convincing illusions.
No, but you're going to interpret my words to suit your perspective no matter what I say, so eh
Anybody can do anything lol, I'm not in charge of resetera, I'm just a poster. I'm also free to ask someone not to do something.
No twisting needed, but I love that you're so looking forward to it.
I'm talking about designing AI to solve a problem that even humans can't solve. There's a huge difference between AlphaGo and a hypothetical AI that can perfectly edit an image so that any changes are undetectable. With AlphaGo, they had tons of training data available (Wikipedia says they started with a database of 30 million moves). Without actual examples of perfectly edited images (under the assumption that the previous poster was correct that a perfectly doctored image does not exist), you would likely have to work backwards from real images and insert artifacts, which is not going to be the same as going from a doctored image to a perfect image. Now, a bit of possibly incorrect speculation on my part: I'm thinking this is would then be similar to correcting compression artifacts on image, which could never be done perfectly since lost information is lost information.
You can't go from A to B without knowing what B (a perfectly doctored image) looks like. The inner workings being a black box is irrelevant when you don't know the inputs and outputs.
Oh I see what you're saying. Yes I agree with that kind of. Although I took Conal's post to mean that because humans were doing the photoshop, and since humans are error prone, photoshop never spelled the disaster this would. Human photo editing can't beat human analysis but ML deepfakes could feasibly beat human video analysis.
Anyway it doesn't matter. Regardless how much scientists and experts scream "no this is wrong, you're wrong, this is not how it works, this is not real" people will believe what they want to believe. The damage being done will be societal, not judicial or criminal.
Anyway it doesn't matter. Regardless how much scientists and experts scream "no this is wrong, you're wrong, this is not how it works, this is not real" people will believe what they want to believe. The damage being done will be societal, not judicial or criminal.
Is the only way to stop this is too regulate this software or machine learning? Because this is just the beginning.
Yeah. What should I do? I didn't know anything about the social media discussion of the ''men are trash'' topic. Just enlighten me why you think that all men are trash and I am sure I will agree with all of the left/feminist/progressive points you make.
For most people there probably aren't enough similar photos of different angles to properly train it, from what I read back when this came out. Someone like Obama has tons of photos and videos out there that can be used. So this seems to be more of a famous people issue.
Yep, this is covered by defamation, specifically defamation per se, which deals with defamation regarding sexual activity and is easier to prove.
Yeah, there is a ton of footage of them that makes training the AI easy, I'd imagine.
Gonna be starting a YouTube channel soon - don't make deepfakes of me brehs
Correct. You're definitely free to ask someone not to do the same exact thing you constantly do to other people.
This is me respectfully declining your request.
This has been a thing for almost a year now IIRC, and that doesn't make it any less maddening and disgusting.
It must be criminalized immediately and people who do this shit deserve jail time and losing unsupervised access to the Internet
It must be criminalized immediately and people who do this shit deserve jail time and losing unsupervised access to the Internet
kinda hard, advances in this topic are always faster than their regulation
edit : 1 solution I can think of is for porn producer to use some kind of floating watermarks (not idle) for their video.....
but I still think machine will be smart enough to even remove the watermarks
I hate this. I hate this so much. Like, as if I'm not questioning reality on a daily basis enough.
The tech is interesting, but people are real jerks for using it maliciously
This is going to be a significant contributor to ending the Internet as we know it I'm afraid. This is a huge Pandora's Box. As more and more people fall victim to this, ISP's and Governments will use it as justification for putting in place severe restrictions on what you can do online. And for the first time they have more than just corporate greed and regulation serving interests that aren't yours as a reason or an excuse. This really is a huge problem.
In 5–10 years everything will be different.
In 5–10 years everything will be different.
Last edited:
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Perfect digital and audio doubling, which is freaky as hell how good it already is, is going to make the idea of evidence and reality meaningless in the next ten to fifteen years. Porn won't matter when your can just make a photorealistic video of your politic opponent saying anything you want and it's impossible to tell. Digital reality is going to be whatever people make and actual evidence is going to get real hard to come by.
That first post and this one. Rediculous shit posts.
This deep fake stuff is terrifying. Goes way beyond fake porn. Makes me wonder what the internets going to be like in 10 years. We really don't know the meaning of fake news yet
Facebook-Twitter 24/7 news cycle didn't exist in 2008 as well, true. I think this will change going forward. It's a lot of things happening really fast and coinciding at the worst time. Social media. Deep fakes. Trump, etc.
It's not real is the issue. Criminalizing fake imagery gets really close to criminalizing thoughts and that's a very dangerous slippery slope. Properly prosecuting libel or slander and applying it to fakes might make more sense.
Even if there's a foolproof way to prove one of these is a fake, the damage will be done. The past few years alone have provided plenty of evidence that people will gladly ignore proof that what they believe is a lie.
I'm sure the ones in control will be completely benevolent with this power.
Attempts? Man I actually killed millions of my own potential offspring to those ScarJo deepfakes.
Maybe you're right in comparing this to photoshop. The difference in this point in time is that it is not yet common knowledge that videos can be fabricated this good. Before it is proven to be fake it can be a real pain to deal with. I also feel that it matters who the target is. It will have a different impact for a fifteen year old to be targeted.
It really is. But we're about to see this used as a political tool as well. This won't be used just by some loser in their basement, but by sponsored trolls to destroy careers.
While the fact that this can be used to generate fake porn is unfortunate, it's affects will be nothing compared to the ability to make anyone say anything on video. People are already convinced just by stories of things allegedly done that never happened. Soon there will be fabricated video evidence of all sorts of things. "What do you mean he didn't do it? I saw him do it with my own eyes."
I might be wrong but I think it's only illegal in the US to use someone's likeness without their permission for commercial use, if its non commercial I think it's okay (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Of course pornhub hosting a video and making money off ads would be considered commercial use.
Deepfakes need to gain the same status as photoshopped photos. Even the layman knows about still image manipulation and could (if they wanted) question a photo based on that. I don't think most people realize/know you can easily manipulate and generate video akin to that.