Ship of Fools: Deepfake news

Thread: Deepfake news Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020469

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Deepfakes, for those who do not know, are placing one person’s face on another’s body.
Initially used for porn, because of course it was, the fear is now it will be used to create “evidence” for fake news stories. The potential is actually fairly alarming.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Are there ways to check if a digital photograph has been modified? Easy ways?

Though I fear the doctored photograph would go half way around the world before any questions are raised... Rather frightening. Photographic evidence has always rated highly.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
Are there ways to check if a digital photograph has been modified? Easy ways?

Mmmm. That depends a bit on the quality of the fake. Yes, there are lots of ways that will catch the standard photoshopping of digital photos, and will probably also catch a deepfake (I haven't actually tried, but I bet it's easy enough.)

But the thing is that it's only easy enough because the photoshoppers and deepfakers aren't trying to hide their tracks. Making a convincing fake that is very difficult to detect is I think possible, although it's quite hard.

This isn't really anything new, though. Photographic fakes have been around for as long as photography, and the integrity of photographic evidence has always rested on the integrity of the photographer and chain of evidence.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

But the thing is that it's only easy enough because the photoshoppers and deepfakers aren't trying to hide their tracks. Making a convincing fake that is very difficult to detect is I think possible, although it's quite hard.

The AI assisted technology that deepfakers currently use is in its relative infancy, but getting better all the time.
The problem is, that once seen, disproving can be seen as part of the "coverup".
ETA: Or proving, for that matter.

[ 12. February 2018, 20:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

The problem is, that once seen, disproving can be seen as part of the "coverup".

Yes indeed - particularly when the "disproof" is complicated and technical, and uses words that "nobody understands". It's easy for a certain kind of person to dismiss something they don't understand in favour of their prejudices.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

Did Conan Doyles fairies count as deep fakes?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
Did Conan Doyles fairies count as deep fakes?

I don’t think so. Those only fooled because of people’s lack of sophistication. They are fairly obvious otherwise, something less and less true these days. And video adds a dimension that a still cannot.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Most of the pictures I see in magazines and on the www are fairly heavily photoshopped. The faces may not be changed, but there are few blemshes and no hanging loose skin.

As has been said photos were easy enough to doctor in the darkroom. Computer programs and digital photos make it so much easier.

There will always be people wiling to believe whatever bullshit they see. Nothing much to do about it. As Honest Abe Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Or maybe not.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I remember about 30 years ago (?) on a television show, perhaps "60 Minutes," they did an exposé on tabloid "newspapers" such as the National Enquirer photoshopping pictures (but they didn't call it photoshopping in those days). They had examples of things like celebrities seen leaving a hotel with someone not their spouse. Then they pointed out details in the pictures showing they were faked. In some cases they were able to prove that the people in the picture had been in different parts of the country when the photographs were supposedly taken, or perhaps had never met each other.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

Bring back the burka for both sexes. Then no-one can play that trick.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Fakery wasn't even a technique that could happen until the invention of photography. According to Mary Beard on television last night, although even now large numbers of busts and coins of Julius Caesar exist, nobody can really say they know what he looked like.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
I remember about 30 years ago (?) on a television show, perhaps "60 Minutes," they did an exposé on tabloid "newspapers" such as the National Enquirer photoshopping pictures (but they didn't call it photoshopping in those days). They had examples of things like celebrities seen leaving a hotel with someone not their spouse. Then they pointed out details in the pictures showing they were faked. In some cases they were able to prove that the people in the picture had been in different parts of the country when the photographs were supposedly taken, or perhaps had never met each other.

What percentage of people got their news from the National Enquirer then vs Facebook now?
Old examples are not as fraught as new for a number of reasons, but that one is one of the biggest factors.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There are many aspects of modern computer and robot technology, and it’s rate of progression that are alarming.
It has long been predicted that humanity will become the victim of its own invention.

The nuclear bomb hasn’t done us so far, this other threat is way more insidious, (says he by way of a computer ) [Roll Eyes]

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
As Honest Abe Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Or maybe not.

I thought he was the one who said, "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

He did. He also had a stint as a vampire hunter as I understand it.

Posted by apostate630 (# 15425) on :

I for one welcome the dawn of seamlessly fake celebrity porn flicks. I’ve been a silent film aficionado since the Nixon administration, and fell hopelessly in lust with Lillian Gish at 14.

[ 13. February 2018, 19:36: Message edited by: apostate630 ]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
As Honest Abe Lincoln said "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Or maybe not.
I thought he was the one who said, "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet."

Yes -- here's proof.
[Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0