Donald Trump covers Rick Astley: Behold the Deep Fake Revolution

[Zundfolge]

LOL, I see they slipped Obama in as the bartender ...

That was for Bill and Joe.
(lets see who gets the reference)

[FoxtArt]

I was just talking about this tech yesterday, after tracking it for about a year. This isn't even a good example of it. I've seen some that are almost visually indistinguishable.

It really is a SERIOUS problem that will be hitting us soon, and it's a double edged sword. Both the audio and video can be deepfaked. Based on my experience, I think we're about two years away from common android/iphone apps that can deepfake substantially well.

I also give it about two years before around 15-25% or even more of all video/audio/photos in a courtroom setting is deepfaked. This is a huge issue politically (false accusations of assaults, accusations of racism, etc.) and this is a double edged sword, because it also provides the perfect scape goat for people who do get caught red handed. The people who will be most successful when this stuff advances are the skilled manipulators / smooth talkers, AKA the shits that actually do the things they were accused of doing, but now can talk their way out of it, and their cult of personality will believe it. (It was deepfaked!) The reaction of normal people, when faced with "video evidence" of them raping a poodle or bashing their child with a vase or whatever, will be judged by about 3/4 of the public to be disingenuous or "acting strange", because unfortunately, nobody has experience dealing with this kind of manipulation in their entire lifetimes so a normal persons reaction will always be strange.

This is so, so powerful in the wrong hands. And soon, it'll be in everyone's hands. We'll see it in heavy use in divorce cases - especially the faked audio. There will be "expert witnesses" you could pay $3,000 to say some adverse evidence was deepfaked, but really, once people hear/see it, it sticks in their mind whether or not they believe it, and no matter what your expert says, it still sounded like you.

Someday... much more distant in the future, I think a good portion of society will just become entirely distrustful of everything they see that it may as well be the 1700's again, where people relied on an individual's reputation alone for the trustworthiness of their statement. And... that's not a good thing either.

ETA: There will also be no consequence for using deepfakes in a political or courtroom setting even if you are caught in 99.99% of cases. There's no consequence today for perjury or forgeries in a courtroom setting 99.99% of the time.

[BushMasterBoy]

I'm waiting for the "Storm Area 51 Event" footage. The suspense is killing me.

[Irving]

Tom Segura fans have been messing with this stuff a lot and messing with Garth Brooks. Here is one of the many face swaps with Tom's face on Brooks' head. This one is interesting because when they are played side by side it's easy to pick up the lack of expression in Segura's face (left) compared to the real on the right. BUT, if you were just to see the one on the left, it's a lot more difficult to pick up.



Here is an audio one of Rogan that is still a little clunky, but the audio is getting pretty good.



Again, the impression is that these ones being passed around on things that people are spending hardly any time on at all.

Then there is this guy's work. These are idealized, but the visuals are still pretty incredible. This guys puts these animations out the very NEXT DAY after the fight happens, so it's not like it takes a lot of time.
**this video has some language**

[SAnd]

OK, I'll make a stab at one point I think is being missed. Or that I missed seeing.

There are a bunch of people out there that have so little real life experience that they think what they experience on their electronic stuff is real. If they see something on electronic media it is real to them because they have so little real life to measure it against. They exclaim it to be Photoshopped!! because it doesn't look like what they have experienced on some game. They are expert on something because they have never driven or seen a car, or gun, or airplane, wild animal or much of any wild nature in motion to compare it to.

The matrix is more real to them than real life.

More human than human.

[Justin]

Relevant XKCD:

[Justin]

I was just talking about this tech yesterday, after tracking it for about a year. This isn't even a good example of it. I've seen some that are almost visually indistinguishable.

It really is a SERIOUS problem that will be hitting us soon, and it's a double edged sword. Both the audio and video can be deepfaked. Based on my experience, I think we're about two years away from common android/iphone apps that can deepfake substantially well.

I also give it about two years before around 15-25% or even more of all video/audio/photos in a courtroom setting is deepfaked. This is a huge issue politically (false accusations of assaults, accusations of racism, etc.) and this is a double edged sword, because it also provides the perfect scape goat for people who do get caught red handed. The people who will be most successful when this stuff advances are the skilled manipulators / smooth talkers, AKA the shits that actually do the things they were accused of doing, but now can talk their way out of it, and their cult of personality will believe it. (It was deepfaked!) The reaction of normal people, when faced with "video evidence" of them raping a poodle or bashing their child with a vase or whatever, will be judged by about 3/4 of the public to be disingenuous or "acting strange", because unfortunately, nobody has experience dealing with this kind of manipulation in their entire lifetimes so a normal persons reaction will always be strange.

This is so, so powerful in the wrong hands. And soon, it'll be in everyone's hands. We'll see it in heavy use in divorce cases - especially the faked audio. There will be "expert witnesses" you could pay $3,000 to say some adverse evidence was deepfaked, but really, once people hear/see it, it sticks in their mind whether or not they believe it, and no matter what your expert says, it still sounded like you.

Someday... much more distant in the future, I think a good portion of society will just become entirely distrustful of everything they see that it may as well be the 1700's again, where people relied on an individual's reputation alone for the trustworthiness of their statement. And... that's not a good thing either.

ETA: There will also be no consequence for using deepfakes in a political or courtroom setting even if you are caught in 99.99% of cases. There's no consequence today for perjury or forgeries in a courtroom setting 99.99% of the time.

This is all relevant.

There was an article I read not too long ago where there was an academic who was proposing that public figures in the future will have to engage in constant life logging, e.g. that they'd have to have either a device or a smartphone app that would constantly be recording their GPS coordinates and probably also logging audio and video on a continual basis such that they would have a continual record that could be admissible into court as a way to have an available alibi in the event of a deep fake-bolstered accusation.

The article highlighted how creepy having to log your life would be, but of course they failed to address the fact that such a logging app or device just presents another attack vector for an adversary.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm totally ignorant of how this works...aside from what I've just read in this thread. I've heard of it recently but haven't given it much thought.

So, if someone fakes a photograph or video or whatever, is there a way to tell it's been faked? Like the Garth Brooks video above. Instead of just singing the song, someone has a fake Brooks saying all kinds of horrible things in say a private setting. Obviously it wouldn't work while he was on stage. But is there some type of analysis that could be done to tell if the audio/voice was not really Brooks, but a faked Brooks?

[Irving]

I'm totally ignorant of how this works...aside from what I've just read in this thread. I've heard of it recently but haven't given it much thought.

So, if someone fakes a photograph or video or whatever, is there a way to tell it's been faked? Like the Garth Brooks video above. Instead of just singing the song, someone has a fake Brooks saying all kinds of horrible things in say a private setting. Obviously it wouldn't work while he was on stage. But is there some type of analysis that could be done to tell if the audio/voice was not really Brooks, but a faked Brooks?

I forget who, but some company is saying they are working on a program that will be able to detect doctored photos. Just something I've recently heard.

On a related note, but one that no one really cares about or is willing to talk about, I guess porn has been having this problem for a while now where people take celebrity faces and put them onto porn stars. I think the term Deep Fake might have even been coined from those videos, but not sure.

[SAnd]

Relevant XKCD:

One picture is worth a thousand words.
Thanks for posting that.