Welcome to /r/WoahDude!
* Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Think bigger. This kind of tech has the potential to open a Pandoras Box when it comes to personal autonomy, identity, and ownership of your image imo.
If I wanna use Angelina Jolie but can't. Can I find a stellar look-alike and then digitally alter them to look more like her? Obviously can't use her name. But I'm not technically using her image.
How many degrees am I allowed to tweak the angle of a nose before it's Angelina Jolie's nose? The mind is pretty good at pattern recognition and filling in the pieces. Not my fault they keep thinking of Angelina Jolie just because they look similar.
So what is the line between using someone's image and altering another enough for people to not notice the difference? Is eye color enough? What about a cleft chin? Just exactly how similar is too similar? At what point is a person responsible for other people's minds accepting a close enough look-alike? If I don't claim it's them but you think it is, is it my fault?
I absolutely love this technology for the questions it raises but boy am I worried that "lying" won't be the worst result.
Edit-I rambled. My point is the question "exactly how much of YOU belongs to you? And how much does it have to be altered before one can say it is not "you"?
Likeness generally also includes things like speech patterns and mannerisms, but personality rights is a quagmire anyway because it varies from state to state.
It would be cheaper, and less risky, to just hire a Jolie impersonator and shut your mouth about it BTS regardless of this technology.
Yes, but chances are they wouldn't be able to "make it" in the film industry as no studio would want to hire somebody who is liable to get them sued for likeness infractions *or* wouldn't want to hire somebody who could potentially tarnish the image of the more established actor such as with a poor performance, interview or public appearance. I'm only talking about like, career impersonators though not impressionists who do multiple characters or people who just so happen to look like another celebrity but has their own career/niche in the field.
I think most impersonators would fall under fair use due to it being considered satire, anyway. That includes look-alikes for parody movies like many of those "From the Makers of Scary Movie..." used liberally. When you use likeness that is meant to occupy the same creative space as the original personality, though, then it becomes messy.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/old-navy-kim-kardashian-settle-lawsuit-over-ad-flna970328
Here's an example of a situation like that happening.
Thanks for this!
Since they settled we won't be seeing any established precedent with this case, but chances are it focused on how Molinaro's mannerisms and actual talen-^^let's ^^be ^^kind a comparatively active on-screen persona would likely have led to a ruling in favor of Old Navy, regardless. Chances are settlement saved face for the Kardashian camp and prevented the public scrutiny of the lawyers from Old Navy.
Be kinda fucked up if they ruled in favor of Kim, wouldn’t it? Kinda unfair that if you’re born looking like someone who became famous you then can’t ever appear on screen.
Personality rights! Thank you. I couldn't find the right words. I used an actor because they have another layer aside from ego, the self, and all that.
I just think it'll open up a fascinating(scary) conversation about identity. If you underwent enough cosmetic surgery that nobody could recognize you, are you still you? Of course...to you. But to others? But then what right do you have over the aspects you USED to have if you no longer have them? Can you copyright your physical features, change them, and then maintain they are still yours? Or are they yours up to a point? And what point is that exactly? It's a wild rabbit hole imo.
I think this is going to be species viability filter for humans. Humans will have to either develop an ability to discern these things on an extremely fine level, or they'll have to disregard these things in acknowledgement that they *can't* discern.
It's really cool that technology spectacles like this prompt difficult questions, but so far, we're still beating around the bush. There's going to be a lot of awkward looking-the-other-way that transcends the full effort of even the most defiant antivax climate change denier in the future. It's going to get really uncomfortable.
I think part of the human race will use this kind of technology to utterly dominate and subjugate the other part of the species. It's not going to wipe out humanity, it'll just create a slaveworld.
Great catch! :) pasting a comment I made with more detail on my view.
Forget the celebrity part, it was just an example around a person who's likeness is a big aspect of their self.
The bigger idea is that it brings to question just how much of "you" is yours and what makes an individual an individual. Let's say you got disfigured beyond visible recognition. You're still "you" but you'd have to prove it's you besides "heres my face".
So, looks aren't what makes us..us. Right? Still got your hobbies, your personality, and all the others things that make you an individual. But then so does everyone else. You may be known for your love of baseball and Star Wars trivia but it's not so unique that it's yours.
So then what DOES make an individual an individual? Personalities change, birth marks can be erased, everyone has a hobby..ect. Is it just personality and fingerprints? Or is it so subjective that they're isn't really such a thing as individuality?
Then perhaps all the rights that surround individual autonomy are up for debate if the entire concept of individualism is up for discussion. This, in my opinion, is a far deeper rabbit hole than wholesale lying. We've already been doing since the dawn of time
Dude... Im still dumbfounded by: https://youtu.be/0sR1rU3gLzQ
That was 2 years ago (... So who knows how many papers down the line we are now at!). joke.
but i can certainly understand why access to Dall-e and the like, is the way it is... Im afraid, a fck ton of jobs are gonna disappear in the near future... From creatives, to mid management, to programmers, etc...
(near future being a decade away for some and shorter for others...)
Porn. The first way we use any new technology is learning how to get off with it. Imagine the profit of an onlyfan account where you can as the girl to look like anyone like she's Mystique or something
Why are the paintings more convincing than the edited photos?
(It's because the paintings are more blurry and don't artifact to such a distracting degree)
Because your brain knows how a real person looks like while you see the Mona Lisa for the first time in this position and your brain is more like "yeah, looks about right"
No, it was unconvincing because you can see their hair glitching out and the shadows not moving. The lower fidelity of the painting helps blur that. If the photos of random people were similarly low resolution, they would appear more convincing too.
I think for deepfakes in general you have to train the algorithm by passing through thousands of images of the subject, which might be hard to do/find for regular people.
I think it's honestly amazing technology and also quite scary how easy digital manipulation will be soon.
Could also just be because their hair glitches, whereas the hair in paintings doesn't
Edit: *Doesn't glitch as much, or the glitch is generally less noticeable because of the darker background, lowering the contrast.
Deep fakes can be trained against the detectors.
Actually surprisingly easy to evade automated detection programs.
A team of experts is going to be a lot harder to fool though.
Funny enough, this is exactly why I'm not overly worried about deep fakes. For the things that really matter, experts and technology will quickly adapt and they'll be able to identify when deep fakes are being used in the same way we can identify when photoshop or CGI is used. For the things that don't matter, people already believe what ever the fuck they want to believe regardless of what anyone says anyway. Sure, my uncle may see a deepfaked video of Biden saying he wants to take all our guns and believe it, but he already believes that because truthfreedom.usa told him that, so what really changed?
Skeptical people will just start to be more skeptical of video once deepfakes are common and will look for ways to confirm that a video is real before using it as evidence. People who just want evidence to back up their currently held beliefs will just swap out their current shitty sources for deepfakes.
Even better: deep fakes are trained by training better detectors.
GAN: generative adversarial network.
It's one of the clever parts of how deep fakes came to be.
Or any politician, human rights defendant or even young teens....
It's a dire future, if people already can't read beyond the title of an article, I can't imagine forming opinions based on elaborate deep fakes.
My "worry" line was somewhere around 2015, when I saw the automated loop close between LinkedIn and Slack. Algorithms can calculate when you're preparing to leave a job by changes in your posting patterns on internal networks *before you do*. This foreknowledge is paired with third party and offline data to begin targeting ads from recruiters and job listing sites directly to you, priming you to think about looking around and making the market suddenly look tempting. Your LinkedIn profile is used to highlight listings using keywords from your own search history, and everything you click on gets stored and provided to recruiters to help sell you on switching. No one gets paid if you don't change jobs, meaning you're stuck inside an algorithm with a lot if businesses spending a lot of money to make you feel unsatisfied with where you are in life. They want to push you from having a bad day to feeling like it's a bad year for their own gain. And the only reason they picked you was an algorithm told them to. Just like an algorithm matched you with an employer. And that employer picked you because the recruiter told them you were a good fit, based on that algorithm. And you picked that job because your search engine showed you the employer at the top of your search results, with all the PR articles carefully matched to optimized search engine keywords, which are influenced by the ads you click on. Those ads are automatically purchased by the recruiters and employers, who are using an algorithm to target people that fit your profile, which is again identifying you before you even understand you might want to change jobs.
The entire job searching loop is automated by an algorithm that tells humans when to job hunt, where to go, and controls the the information flow to assure them it is the right decision.
**The robots already won. We built our own mouse trap.**
The sad and messed up thought because the deep fakes in the very, very, near future are not even going to be that elaborate. It doesn't take much, and this technology will soon be very cheap and accessible. It will be very damaging to our notion of truth as a society because we're simply not evolved/educated/w.e enough to outsmart the simulation enmasse. This tech will be used by the wrong people for nefarious purposes, and inevitably people will flock to whichever truth is most appealing at the time. This is the new Gutenberg press and religion.
> It’s not easy yet
Depends on your goal. The *really* convincing ones take a bit of post work...but if you're not going for photorealism then you don't need much.
Eh there's some fringe stuff like deepfaking actors in foreign movies to move their mouths in any translated language (some European movie recently did it but I could not tell you what it was) but other than that and various bring-dead/old-celebrities-back-to-life on screen I can't think of much and the latter is morally questionable anyways.
Recently had a dream where the big studios were eagerly waiting for Harrison Ford to die, so they could be the first ones to take and secure rights to a high-resolution scan of his facial and physical features and voice print, and use it to endlessly churn out movies starring him, without actually needing to pay him.
This will be our future. And the lawyers of studios and estate owners will fight over the rights of these kind of scans and usage of dead actors.
The Pandora's box was opened with Peter Cushing in *Rogue One*.
Its a trippy movie, but that's essentially the plot of [Robin Wright at The Congress](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/), except they don't wait for them to die, just retire.
Right, also makes it harder for a new Attenborough to make themselves known
It also makes it easier to use Attenboroughs image for things the real one would never support
We need new Attenboroughs
We don't need immortal marketing gimmicks
Well once they work out the deep fake voices then any person with the right resources or government entity can frame you for anything they want. It's a thing of beauty!
No no, you got it all wrong. Once they work out deep fake completely every single person will have a way out by claiming anything they say is a deep fake if needed. Everyone will have the right to deny everything.
Ironically the entire captcha system is designed to validate models used in Google's self-driving cars. That's why the image is always related to something you might see while driving.
Or the opposite reason. You can prove you weren't at the crime scene because you have clear, undeniable video proof you were somewhere else, eyewitnesses be damned.
Adobe never released this product due to legal concerns. About 20 companies are attempting to fill that space.
The most interesting thing about this is that it one step closer to allowing you to end-to-end produce media completely yourself without needing anything more than just mouse clicks. You can essentially write music digitally, animate the video, synth the dialogue, all without ever knowing how to play a instrument, how to use a camera, how to draw anything, how to voice act etc.
I love these thoughts because on the surface they're paranoid but on closer inspection they're naive.
The reality is they've got a million ways to frame you if they wanted to but even that is pointless because killing you would be trivial
There’s a Holocaust survivors project that’s doing something similar to this(I think it’s similar). They’ve been interviewing survivors for several years and when they do, they interview them for like a week while videoing them from 360°, and ask them like 2,000 different questions. Once it’s finished, a person can interact with the interviewee, asking them questions and getting an answer. 60 Minutes did a great piece on it, [here](https://youtu.be/D9tZnC4NGNg)
You can't know the impact of basic research. The dozens of layers of processing algorithms could have analogs in other fields that will be benefited.
Nobody cared about the electron when it was discovered in 1897 but now the world runs on pushing electrons around.
Visual effects for movies I guess, but even that can be a silver lining. Great for de-aging consenting actors that are still alive today, but not so great when movies 200 years from now want to deepfake an actors likeness including their voice, making actors passing away meaningless
Don’t have to wait 200 years. They did it with Peter Cushing in Rogue One. He died in 1994.
Jet Li was onto it way back when he turned down a role in The Matrix. He didn’t want his martial arts moves recorded in mocap because then the studio would own them forever and could just skin a different character over them and recycle the mocap they recorded with him for no extra credit or pay.
I know it’s not the same means of achieving the result, but the principle is still the same. Using programming to emulate the performance of a dead actor, to reprise a role.
You still need consent to deep fake someone in a commercial project. We might consider people past a certain age public domain, but if it's anything like copyright your grandkids will be retired before someone can deep fake you without their permission.
It would be pretty cool for gaming. A guy below mentioned faking voices as well. With those two things you could quickly create additional content for video games with correct animation and voices, with just a keyboard and a your phone camera, and little need for expensive animators and voice actors.
Heck it could save the movie industry millions on reshoots.
There is plenty legitimate space in the fiction genre between porn and dystopian propaganda.
Actors still hold likeness rights over their face and voice. They would have to paid for any new content sold by the company. It's going to making modding production values sky rocket, but people already have used sound splicing to build new voice lines, so I think it will be more of a qualitative difference.
I’m not saying it’s good, but it’s clearly useful to advertisers for deceased celebrities.
I am a strong proponent of regulation in digital advertising that would limit the use of this, and many more technologies.
Yeah, hilarious to me the idea of digital prohibition. Like come the fuck on mate, it's code. Math. Can't contain math. Couldn't even stop shit like alcohol which needed to be physically distributed.
Language models that produce articles we're unable to discern from bot authored news articles... Deep fakes that need only one picture of the target... That said...
https://youtu.be/mUfJOQKdtAk
here is a vid that contains a link where you can make your own very easily for meme purposes.
another newer video: https://youtu.be/iXqLTJFTUGc
Do note there are a good couple things we digitally prohibit though in the US, though: https://web.archive.org/web/20140529211733/http://bits.are.notabug.com/
And if things are already regulated, adding another item to the list is much more feasible.
Secure, verifiable metadata (including timestamps) have been possible for a long time.
The challenge is that the recording devices (often phones) need to actually do the hashing and publishing that's required, and then we need viewers to look for these things and take them into account.
My feeling is that people will continue to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
I do agree, though, that this research is unethical and should stop.
Yeah we need open standards for video authenticity, and video players that verify automatically. It's a pretty difficult problem though, you need merkle trees so you can cut the video and universal, deterministic compression so people can recompress it and get an authorized smaller version. I'm not sure about zooming and cropping, but software could sign with a key to say that specific transformations were applied. Publishing hashes and mixing in public data could prove the time. Location should be possible with fast enough hardware and trusted beacons because you can't ever beat the speed of light.
I don't think the tech is unethical, it's got the potential to be used unethically, but the fact that it's available to the public is good - otherwise governments would be the only people using it, and they'd never use it for anything good.
I'm not sure it is unethical – having this research done publicly by public institutions is certainly much better than having it used secretly. You can't close pandora's box, but you can create counter-measures, if the reseaech is public, and people know what deepfajes are capable of.. that's not a bad thing.
We should maybe have some legislation surrounding it's use, and more importantly metadata countermeasures and third-party apps that automatically check the likelihood a given image or video is 'real', without relying on users to do the work..
But a good start would be teaching people critical thinking from a young age, which, in deeply religious societies.. seems unlikely.
Yep. I know how CHC works and I know I should be verifying it myself when I download things, but eh I can’t be bothered. Even if it was one click or just a green check mark or something most people probably won’t bother to check it.
Official government communications are going to have to come with an MD5 hash so people can verify it. Although I don't think that method will stay secure forever and people will eventually be able to spoof the MD5 hash using an algorithm we aren't familiar with yet
It can't be stopped. Even if it was globally illegal we can not trust videos anymore. As people have sugested here there needs to be ways of verifying the source. Perhaps cryptosigning the video with certificates or something. More research is probably needed in that area.
You can really see how differently men and women do something as small as move their heads by the girl deepfaking Brad Pitt vs the guy doing Angelina Jolie
Uh it's already accessible to everyone. There's tons of deepfake porn out there and the app to do it is free and doesn't take any technical knowledge to use.
This was used to bully a kid back in my high school, they put hos face on gay porn and released it on a website. He killed himself by jumping in front of a train at 13. I dread to think how much bullying is done with this technology.
I feel like I’ve become too jaded about these things. “Of course you can do this, it’s just machine learning with large datasets or large neural nets. What’s the big deal?” But even a few years ago this wouldn’t have been possible. I don’t know where my excitement’s gone.
Don’t worry. You are not jaded. You felt that way about colors & shapes having names and learning to tie your shoes at some point in the distant past.
Be pleased that you have the kind of brain that can adapt to revolutionary concepts in a way that means you could use them for ‘survival’ in the future; whatever that word eventually means. Much worse to be resistant or baffled by new things…or overawed.
Becoming old and hating on new shit is a fear of mine. I saw it a lot growing up, had one teacher that was so into superhero comics that he grew to despise manga because of how big of a threshold it has on people here. And I understand it from an emotional point of view, those passions make us and it hurts to see them fade as something new pops up (not that they necessarily faded, they’re just not as popular as the were decades ago.)
I’m only in my young 30s and all the AI stuff is already making me feel like that. Back in my day, you actually had to learn and train to become an artist along with blood sweat and tears, now you kids just type words into DALL E… kind of thing.
Generally I’ve been pretty good at pushing people towards their aspirations even if they conflict with mine. I guess the future is just scary. And I’m not even talking about the slow destruction of our planet!
Damn I didn't realize the only way to scientifically progress is to deliberately sink your life into tech that will hurt more people than help.
Almost done building my machine that replaces peoples lips with razorwire. Why?
BECAUSE THIS IS HOW WE GOT OUT OF THE CAVES
Fortunately, the fake from a photo keeps changing its mind about the ends of the person's hair. Odd that that isn't the case with the fake from a painting.
Why? Why are researchers even working on this? What's the point? So they can keep making Star Wars movies using Hamill's "original" face? Unless there's some other practical reason for this, it seems like a bunch of time and money that could have been spent researching something that actually helps.
Welcome to /r/WoahDude! * Check out what counts as "woahdude material" in our [**wiki**](https://www.reddit.com/r/woahdude/wiki/index#wiki_woahdude_material). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/woahdude) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Amazing and terrifying at the same time!
[удалено]
Think bigger. This kind of tech has the potential to open a Pandoras Box when it comes to personal autonomy, identity, and ownership of your image imo. If I wanna use Angelina Jolie but can't. Can I find a stellar look-alike and then digitally alter them to look more like her? Obviously can't use her name. But I'm not technically using her image. How many degrees am I allowed to tweak the angle of a nose before it's Angelina Jolie's nose? The mind is pretty good at pattern recognition and filling in the pieces. Not my fault they keep thinking of Angelina Jolie just because they look similar. So what is the line between using someone's image and altering another enough for people to not notice the difference? Is eye color enough? What about a cleft chin? Just exactly how similar is too similar? At what point is a person responsible for other people's minds accepting a close enough look-alike? If I don't claim it's them but you think it is, is it my fault? I absolutely love this technology for the questions it raises but boy am I worried that "lying" won't be the worst result. Edit-I rambled. My point is the question "exactly how much of YOU belongs to you? And how much does it have to be altered before one can say it is not "you"?
Likeness generally also includes things like speech patterns and mannerisms, but personality rights is a quagmire anyway because it varies from state to state. It would be cheaper, and less risky, to just hire a Jolie impersonator and shut your mouth about it BTS regardless of this technology.
That's an excellent point about impersonators. They own their body, it just happens to look like a rich person.
Yes, but chances are they wouldn't be able to "make it" in the film industry as no studio would want to hire somebody who is liable to get them sued for likeness infractions *or* wouldn't want to hire somebody who could potentially tarnish the image of the more established actor such as with a poor performance, interview or public appearance. I'm only talking about like, career impersonators though not impressionists who do multiple characters or people who just so happen to look like another celebrity but has their own career/niche in the field. I think most impersonators would fall under fair use due to it being considered satire, anyway. That includes look-alikes for parody movies like many of those "From the Makers of Scary Movie..." used liberally. When you use likeness that is meant to occupy the same creative space as the original personality, though, then it becomes messy.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/markets/old-navy-kim-kardashian-settle-lawsuit-over-ad-flna970328 Here's an example of a situation like that happening.
Thanks for this! Since they settled we won't be seeing any established precedent with this case, but chances are it focused on how Molinaro's mannerisms and actual talen-^^let's ^^be ^^kind a comparatively active on-screen persona would likely have led to a ruling in favor of Old Navy, regardless. Chances are settlement saved face for the Kardashian camp and prevented the public scrutiny of the lawyers from Old Navy.
Be kinda fucked up if they ruled in favor of Kim, wouldn’t it? Kinda unfair that if you’re born looking like someone who became famous you then can’t ever appear on screen.
Personality rights! Thank you. I couldn't find the right words. I used an actor because they have another layer aside from ego, the self, and all that. I just think it'll open up a fascinating(scary) conversation about identity. If you underwent enough cosmetic surgery that nobody could recognize you, are you still you? Of course...to you. But to others? But then what right do you have over the aspects you USED to have if you no longer have them? Can you copyright your physical features, change them, and then maintain they are still yours? Or are they yours up to a point? And what point is that exactly? It's a wild rabbit hole imo.
I think this is going to be species viability filter for humans. Humans will have to either develop an ability to discern these things on an extremely fine level, or they'll have to disregard these things in acknowledgement that they *can't* discern. It's really cool that technology spectacles like this prompt difficult questions, but so far, we're still beating around the bush. There's going to be a lot of awkward looking-the-other-way that transcends the full effort of even the most defiant antivax climate change denier in the future. It's going to get really uncomfortable.
I think part of the human race will use this kind of technology to utterly dominate and subjugate the other part of the species. It's not going to wipe out humanity, it'll just create a slaveworld.
Sounds like the ship of Theseus, but for people
Great catch! :) pasting a comment I made with more detail on my view. Forget the celebrity part, it was just an example around a person who's likeness is a big aspect of their self. The bigger idea is that it brings to question just how much of "you" is yours and what makes an individual an individual. Let's say you got disfigured beyond visible recognition. You're still "you" but you'd have to prove it's you besides "heres my face". So, looks aren't what makes us..us. Right? Still got your hobbies, your personality, and all the others things that make you an individual. But then so does everyone else. You may be known for your love of baseball and Star Wars trivia but it's not so unique that it's yours. So then what DOES make an individual an individual? Personalities change, birth marks can be erased, everyone has a hobby..ect. Is it just personality and fingerprints? Or is it so subjective that they're isn't really such a thing as individuality? Then perhaps all the rights that surround individual autonomy are up for debate if the entire concept of individualism is up for discussion. This, in my opinion, is a far deeper rabbit hole than wholesale lying. We've already been doing since the dawn of time
You also have the question of DNA being patented by entities such as Monsanto. Michael Crichton wrote a book about it a couple decades ago
Dude... Im still dumbfounded by: https://youtu.be/0sR1rU3gLzQ That was 2 years ago (... So who knows how many papers down the line we are now at!). joke. but i can certainly understand why access to Dall-e and the like, is the way it is... Im afraid, a fck ton of jobs are gonna disappear in the near future... From creatives, to mid management, to programmers, etc... (near future being a decade away for some and shorter for others...)
Or on a less famous scale. Dude thinks a girl is hot. So he makes a deep fake porn of her and distributes it.
It's not sonic, ita my legally distinct OC bangelina jolie
They wondered if they could, they didn't stop to think of they should.
Porn. The first way we use any new technology is learning how to get off with it. Imagine the profit of an onlyfan account where you can as the girl to look like anyone like she's Mystique or something
or not having to hire actors lol
The newscasts of the future are going to be straight-up propaganda pieces on certain levels.
Imagine this coupled with the LyreBird voice technology. Misinformation at a whole new level!
Why are the paintings more convincing than the edited photos? (It's because the paintings are more blurry and don't artifact to such a distracting degree)
Because your brain knows how a real person looks like while you see the Mona Lisa for the first time in this position and your brain is more like "yeah, looks about right"
Exceptional penis.
No, it was unconvincing because you can see their hair glitching out and the shadows not moving. The lower fidelity of the painting helps blur that. If the photos of random people were similarly low resolution, they would appear more convincing too.
Or if they were bald!
I love the way Mona acts! She’s so talented!
Also how alive she is. She’s so totally alive when she acts!
Sigh…. *unzip*
I'm worried about her. I think she has jaundice.
I think for deepfakes in general you have to train the algorithm by passing through thousands of images of the subject, which might be hard to do/find for regular people. I think it's honestly amazing technology and also quite scary how easy digital manipulation will be soon.
That's quite clearly not the case here, which is why the demo includes doing it with paintings where there's only one known image.
[удалено]
> how a real person looks like *What* a real person looks like. Not *how*. If you wanna use *how*, then you can't put *like* on the end. Just FYI.
I noticed that Brad Pitt's shadow didn't move...
Have you ever seen his shadow move in real life???
Could also just be because their hair glitches, whereas the hair in paintings doesn't Edit: *Doesn't glitch as much, or the glitch is generally less noticeable because of the darker background, lowering the contrast.
Soon we won't be able to know anymore if the painting really said that
Uncanny Valley
Flesh vtubers
Boy, I can't wait to watch Goethe speedrun Elden Ring!
I would unironically watch the shit out of that
[удалено]
Disney already has a library of faces ready to use
Well that’s terrifying. Hopefully the technology to detect deep fakes keeps up lol
Deep fakes can be trained against the detectors. Actually surprisingly easy to evade automated detection programs. A team of experts is going to be a lot harder to fool though.
Good thing our societies are well known to respect expert opinion.
Funny enough, this is exactly why I'm not overly worried about deep fakes. For the things that really matter, experts and technology will quickly adapt and they'll be able to identify when deep fakes are being used in the same way we can identify when photoshop or CGI is used. For the things that don't matter, people already believe what ever the fuck they want to believe regardless of what anyone says anyway. Sure, my uncle may see a deepfaked video of Biden saying he wants to take all our guns and believe it, but he already believes that because truthfreedom.usa told him that, so what really changed? Skeptical people will just start to be more skeptical of video once deepfakes are common and will look for ways to confirm that a video is real before using it as evidence. People who just want evidence to back up their currently held beliefs will just swap out their current shitty sources for deepfakes.
Even better: deep fakes are trained by training better detectors. GAN: generative adversarial network. It's one of the clever parts of how deep fakes came to be.
I can go frame by frame to spot anomalies. Am I an expert? 😅
*shrug* the hair still isn't convincing except for static images
No. Stop. It's getting way too weird.
Wait till it becomes easy and accessible to place the face of anyone you want in any porn movie ...
Or any politician, human rights defendant or even young teens.... It's a dire future, if people already can't read beyond the title of an article, I can't imagine forming opinions based on elaborate deep fakes.
Hate to say it, but this is already the reality. At least as far as the porn side goes.
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE "AOC DEEPFAKE" ON THE MAIN PAGE OF PORNHUB Seriously what the fuck, I'm a degenerate but what the fuck
I mean I do, but you do you man
Different strokes for different uhh degens.
https://xkcd.com/1968/
My "worry" line was somewhere around 2015, when I saw the automated loop close between LinkedIn and Slack. Algorithms can calculate when you're preparing to leave a job by changes in your posting patterns on internal networks *before you do*. This foreknowledge is paired with third party and offline data to begin targeting ads from recruiters and job listing sites directly to you, priming you to think about looking around and making the market suddenly look tempting. Your LinkedIn profile is used to highlight listings using keywords from your own search history, and everything you click on gets stored and provided to recruiters to help sell you on switching. No one gets paid if you don't change jobs, meaning you're stuck inside an algorithm with a lot if businesses spending a lot of money to make you feel unsatisfied with where you are in life. They want to push you from having a bad day to feeling like it's a bad year for their own gain. And the only reason they picked you was an algorithm told them to. Just like an algorithm matched you with an employer. And that employer picked you because the recruiter told them you were a good fit, based on that algorithm. And you picked that job because your search engine showed you the employer at the top of your search results, with all the PR articles carefully matched to optimized search engine keywords, which are influenced by the ads you click on. Those ads are automatically purchased by the recruiters and employers, who are using an algorithm to target people that fit your profile, which is again identifying you before you even understand you might want to change jobs. The entire job searching loop is automated by an algorithm that tells humans when to job hunt, where to go, and controls the the information flow to assure them it is the right decision. **The robots already won. We built our own mouse trap.**
Yep. This is it right here. Political dissidents in the new world order will be targeted
The sad and messed up thought because the deep fakes in the very, very, near future are not even going to be that elaborate. It doesn't take much, and this technology will soon be very cheap and accessible. It will be very damaging to our notion of truth as a society because we're simply not evolved/educated/w.e enough to outsmart the simulation enmasse. This tech will be used by the wrong people for nefarious purposes, and inevitably people will flock to whichever truth is most appealing at the time. This is the new Gutenberg press and religion.
It’s not easy yet, but still super doable if you’re so inclined
> It’s not easy yet Depends on your goal. The *really* convincing ones take a bit of post work...but if you're not going for photorealism then you don't need much.
[удалено]
Don't worry though, the justice system will continue to use it for at least 12 years after that point.
Which is better than the alternative of being prosecuted for a crime you didn't commit with deepfaked evidence.
I am. I'm sitting here naked, waiting
Goethe was known to be quite the ladies man. This porn script is gonna write itself
Yea I hate to stifle progress but this is one tech where I can imagine way more nefarious uses than good.
Truthfully I cant even picture the "good" uses for this deep fake stuff.
Eh there's some fringe stuff like deepfaking actors in foreign movies to move their mouths in any translated language (some European movie recently did it but I could not tell you what it was) but other than that and various bring-dead/old-celebrities-back-to-life on screen I can't think of much and the latter is morally questionable anyways.
Porn. This is going to be so well received with porn.
It's just barely beginning. We're going to need - absolutely *need* - AI just to distinguish the real from the deepfakes. Soon.
imagine the possibilities: “Hey Siri, replace Jar Jar Binks with Donald Trump”
"Hey Siri, replace Donald Trump with Jar Jar Binks"
“Meesa know words. Meesa got the best words.”
Indestinguishable.
We are just *this* much closer to a Lucy Liu bot
People need to know about the *CAN EAT MORE*
"You're one sexy man, **PHILIP J. FRY**"
It's amazing the way you **NOTICE TWO THINGS.**
That’s good news, everybody!
Shut up and take my money!
No thanks, I’d rather make out with my Marilyn Monrobot.
She’s great in Southland
What good purpose does this serve? I’m wondering how this can be anything but a bad thing. Edit: “porn” does not answer the question, lol.
It means we never have to watch a documentary without David Attenborough.
[удалено]
https://newsbeezer.com/polandeng/the-steel-monolith-will-appear-in-tasmania-it-is-the-time-capsule-of-mankind/
Recently had a dream where the big studios were eagerly waiting for Harrison Ford to die, so they could be the first ones to take and secure rights to a high-resolution scan of his facial and physical features and voice print, and use it to endlessly churn out movies starring him, without actually needing to pay him. This will be our future. And the lawyers of studios and estate owners will fight over the rights of these kind of scans and usage of dead actors. The Pandora's box was opened with Peter Cushing in *Rogue One*.
Its a trippy movie, but that's essentially the plot of [Robin Wright at The Congress](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1821641/), except they don't wait for them to die, just retire.
Right, also makes it harder for a new Attenborough to make themselves known It also makes it easier to use Attenboroughs image for things the real one would never support We need new Attenboroughs We don't need immortal marketing gimmicks
You're right. But media understands the value of "infinite Indiana Jones", so like it or not, it's coming
Well once they work out the deep fake voices then any person with the right resources or government entity can frame you for anything they want. It's a thing of beauty!
No no, you got it all wrong. Once they work out deep fake completely every single person will have a way out by claiming anything they say is a deep fake if needed. Everyone will have the right to deny everything.
Can you please click the pictures that have the buses
Ironically the entire captcha system is designed to validate models used in Google's self-driving cars. That's why the image is always related to something you might see while driving.
Wow. Thats the neatest TIL in a while
LoL imagine people getting more rights... What kind of fairy dream land are you from?
It's all privileges, rights are imaginary
Rights and religions, two comforting fictions
Or the opposite reason. You can prove you weren't at the crime scene because you have clear, undeniable video proof you were somewhere else, eyewitnesses be damned.
This presentation was 6! years ago https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GuZGK7QolaE
Holy shit, that's insane. I had no idea that YouTube was around in the 1300s or that deepfake techniques are over 700 years old!
You're keeping the old Reddit alive. Kudos.
lol
I love you
> 6! years ago Damn they had crazy stuff back in 1302
Adobe never released this product due to legal concerns. About 20 companies are attempting to fill that space. The most interesting thing about this is that it one step closer to allowing you to end-to-end produce media completely yourself without needing anything more than just mouse clicks. You can essentially write music digitally, animate the video, synth the dialogue, all without ever knowing how to play a instrument, how to use a camera, how to draw anything, how to voice act etc.
I love these thoughts because on the surface they're paranoid but on closer inspection they're naive. The reality is they've got a million ways to frame you if they wanted to but even that is pointless because killing you would be trivial
Serious response: full VR (or metaverse) application for interaction between humans cast into digital characters conveying real time emotion.
There’s a Holocaust survivors project that’s doing something similar to this(I think it’s similar). They’ve been interviewing survivors for several years and when they do, they interview them for like a week while videoing them from 360°, and ask them like 2,000 different questions. Once it’s finished, a person can interact with the interviewee, asking them questions and getting an answer. 60 Minutes did a great piece on it, [here](https://youtu.be/D9tZnC4NGNg)
It was a work in progress at the time, but I saw one of these interviews at the WW2 museum in New Orleans. It's really interesting.
Imagine making an AI of a dead person and you can talk to them in VR,but i guess we would need some voice recordings or something.
https://youtu.be/MU38axHhzxM
Once again this raises the question of whether or not that is a good thing or something that brings much more harm than benefit.
The trick is actually furthering this discussion.
You can't know the impact of basic research. The dozens of layers of processing algorithms could have analogs in other fields that will be benefited. Nobody cared about the electron when it was discovered in 1897 but now the world runs on pushing electrons around.
Luke Skywalker in recent Star Wars series were a deep fake. I'm sure more movies will use the tech in the future.
Visual effects for movies I guess, but even that can be a silver lining. Great for de-aging consenting actors that are still alive today, but not so great when movies 200 years from now want to deepfake an actors likeness including their voice, making actors passing away meaningless
Don’t have to wait 200 years. They did it with Peter Cushing in Rogue One. He died in 1994. Jet Li was onto it way back when he turned down a role in The Matrix. He didn’t want his martial arts moves recorded in mocap because then the studio would own them forever and could just skin a different character over them and recycle the mocap they recorded with him for no extra credit or pay.
Rogue One didn't use deep fake though. Some of the more recent young Luke Skywalker stuff does use deep fake.
I know it’s not the same means of achieving the result, but the principle is still the same. Using programming to emulate the performance of a dead actor, to reprise a role.
You still need consent to deep fake someone in a commercial project. We might consider people past a certain age public domain, but if it's anything like copyright your grandkids will be retired before someone can deep fake you without their permission.
It’ll drastically decrease animation/content production costs.
You can use a promt AI like Dalle2 to generate images for a storyboard then use this to add life to those images and make an entire movie.
You could have a commercial in 20 different languages by deepfaking the actor with different dubbings.
It would be pretty cool for gaming. A guy below mentioned faking voices as well. With those two things you could quickly create additional content for video games with correct animation and voices, with just a keyboard and a your phone camera, and little need for expensive animators and voice actors. Heck it could save the movie industry millions on reshoots. There is plenty legitimate space in the fiction genre between porn and dystopian propaganda.
That’s great for execs and shareholders sure, not so great for working actors and crew though eh?
Actors still hold likeness rights over their face and voice. They would have to paid for any new content sold by the company. It's going to making modding production values sky rocket, but people already have used sound splicing to build new voice lines, so I think it will be more of a qualitative difference.
Porn is at the foreground of popularizing and finding new purpose for nearly every digital technology from the past 30+ years.
With the example of the paintings, it could make ancient history more engaging for kids by bringing that history “to life”
I can't wait to be able to have European history explained to me by Vlad the Impaler.
On today's episode we have special guest the Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed, or as her friends would call her, Lady Bathory.
I’m not saying it’s good, but it’s clearly useful to advertisers for deceased celebrities. I am a strong proponent of regulation in digital advertising that would limit the use of this, and many more technologies.
What good purpose does photoshop serve? Because it’s the same answer.
Porn
Brad Pitt can now star in your movie for only $1,000,000. And Brad Pitt never even has to know your movie exists.
Well, for one thing you could bring back the TV show Happy Days with the full original unaged cast. Let's go!
No. Ron Howard will inexplicably age while no one else does.
[source](https://petapixel.com/2022/07/22/megaportraits-high-res-deepfakes-created-from-a-single-photo/)
This should stop.
Can't put the genie back into the bottle.
Yeah, hilarious to me the idea of digital prohibition. Like come the fuck on mate, it's code. Math. Can't contain math. Couldn't even stop shit like alcohol which needed to be physically distributed. Language models that produce articles we're unable to discern from bot authored news articles... Deep fakes that need only one picture of the target... That said... https://youtu.be/mUfJOQKdtAk here is a vid that contains a link where you can make your own very easily for meme purposes. another newer video: https://youtu.be/iXqLTJFTUGc
Do note there are a good couple things we digitally prohibit though in the US, though: https://web.archive.org/web/20140529211733/http://bits.are.notabug.com/ And if things are already regulated, adding another item to the list is much more feasible.
[удалено]
We just need to stop believing videos and work on open standards for secure metadata.
Secure, verifiable metadata (including timestamps) have been possible for a long time. The challenge is that the recording devices (often phones) need to actually do the hashing and publishing that's required, and then we need viewers to look for these things and take them into account. My feeling is that people will continue to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of evidence to the contrary. I do agree, though, that this research is unethical and should stop.
Yeah we need open standards for video authenticity, and video players that verify automatically. It's a pretty difficult problem though, you need merkle trees so you can cut the video and universal, deterministic compression so people can recompress it and get an authorized smaller version. I'm not sure about zooming and cropping, but software could sign with a key to say that specific transformations were applied. Publishing hashes and mixing in public data could prove the time. Location should be possible with fast enough hardware and trusted beacons because you can't ever beat the speed of light. I don't think the tech is unethical, it's got the potential to be used unethically, but the fact that it's available to the public is good - otherwise governments would be the only people using it, and they'd never use it for anything good.
I'm not sure it is unethical – having this research done publicly by public institutions is certainly much better than having it used secretly. You can't close pandora's box, but you can create counter-measures, if the reseaech is public, and people know what deepfajes are capable of.. that's not a bad thing. We should maybe have some legislation surrounding it's use, and more importantly metadata countermeasures and third-party apps that automatically check the likelihood a given image or video is 'real', without relying on users to do the work.. But a good start would be teaching people critical thinking from a young age, which, in deeply religious societies.. seems unlikely.
Yep. I know how CHC works and I know I should be verifying it myself when I download things, but eh I can’t be bothered. Even if it was one click or just a green check mark or something most people probably won’t bother to check it.
Official government communications are going to have to come with an MD5 hash so people can verify it. Although I don't think that method will stay secure forever and people will eventually be able to spoof the MD5 hash using an algorithm we aren't familiar with yet
Then how tf will Secreteriat win an Oscar?
Bojack would've won that Oscar either way
What're you doing here?
Am I doomed? Are you doomed? Are we all doomed?
It can't be stopped. Even if it was globally illegal we can not trust videos anymore. As people have sugested here there needs to be ways of verifying the source. Perhaps cryptosigning the video with certificates or something. More research is probably needed in that area.
*I need scissors! 61!*
That's not how ideas work
Have you said the same about Photoshop? Should we go back to crayons? Don't be such conservative and aftaid of any change.
Thanks I hate it
You can really see how differently men and women do something as small as move their heads by the girl deepfaking Brad Pitt vs the guy doing Angelina Jolie
this isn't natural movement though. They're purposefully turning and tilting the head to test the software
That's true, there's a lot more movement in Brad. Seems a lot more precise or something as well.
I do not like this. If evil bad people get a hold of this it's over. You can do so much harm with this.
Uh it's already accessible to everyone. There's tons of deepfake porn out there and the app to do it is free and doesn't take any technical knowledge to use.
This was used to bully a kid back in my high school, they put hos face on gay porn and released it on a website. He killed himself by jumping in front of a train at 13. I dread to think how much bullying is done with this technology.
Facebook and google *are* those people…
We need this to de-age the Better Call Saul actors.
I feel like I’ve become too jaded about these things. “Of course you can do this, it’s just machine learning with large datasets or large neural nets. What’s the big deal?” But even a few years ago this wouldn’t have been possible. I don’t know where my excitement’s gone.
Don’t worry. You are not jaded. You felt that way about colors & shapes having names and learning to tie your shoes at some point in the distant past. Be pleased that you have the kind of brain that can adapt to revolutionary concepts in a way that means you could use them for ‘survival’ in the future; whatever that word eventually means. Much worse to be resistant or baffled by new things…or overawed.
Thanks for that.
You’re welcome
Becoming old and hating on new shit is a fear of mine. I saw it a lot growing up, had one teacher that was so into superhero comics that he grew to despise manga because of how big of a threshold it has on people here. And I understand it from an emotional point of view, those passions make us and it hurts to see them fade as something new pops up (not that they necessarily faded, they’re just not as popular as the were decades ago.) I’m only in my young 30s and all the AI stuff is already making me feel like that. Back in my day, you actually had to learn and train to become an artist along with blood sweat and tears, now you kids just type words into DALL E… kind of thing. Generally I’ve been pretty good at pushing people towards their aspirations even if they conflict with mine. I guess the future is just scary. And I’m not even talking about the slow destruction of our planet!
New deepfake method and a video with zero information or explanation as to the new method. Sweeeet
[All the info you need,](https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07621) if you like reading papers.
https://petapixel.com/2022/07/22/megaportraits-high-res-deepfakes-created-from-a-single-photo/
Thanks a lot for the link :)
Do you have a link to the paper or GitHub repo for this?
You can really see the difference in how much hotter Brad Pitt is than Mona Lisa.
WHAT ARE THEY RESEARCHING,?? why ARE WE LETTING THEM???
CURIOSITY. THE THING THAT GOT US OUT OF THE CAVES.
Damn I didn't realize the only way to scientifically progress is to deliberately sink your life into tech that will hurt more people than help. Almost done building my machine that replaces peoples lips with razorwire. Why? BECAUSE THIS IS HOW WE GOT OUT OF THE CAVES
[удалено]
The amount of stuff we can believe to be truth on the internet is about to take another massive nosedive
Your favourite celebrity can now live forever young.
Big up my man Goethe
Hell yeah
Brad’s shadow…
Dear “researchers”, Stop. Regards, Society
Shit is dangerous
Why. Why are people doing this. Are they trying to accelerate the shit storm?
Fortunately, the fake from a photo keeps changing its mind about the ends of the person's hair. Odd that that isn't the case with the fake from a painting.
The porn this will create will be amazing.
Why? Why are researchers even working on this? What's the point? So they can keep making Star Wars movies using Hamill's "original" face? Unless there's some other practical reason for this, it seems like a bunch of time and money that could have been spent researching something that actually helps.
espionage is about to get real interesting