Deepfake videos muddy the water even more.

[JoeMorgue]

Perhaps take things beyond the truth horizon.

And I think we passed that point already.

 

[Distracted1]

As Distracted1 just pointed out, we've always had this inability. Deepfakes are just doing for video news what has always been the case for printed news.

Indeed, we have been on this road for a long time.
Until now, however, if a recording existed of a particular incident we had some objective evidence from which to draw a conclusion. Losing that is a tragedy.

 

[theprestige]

Yes and my point is that this is just going to make it worse. Perhaps take things beyond the truth horizon.

My take is that everything beyond your literal horizon has been beyond your truth horizon all along. And this has been true for everyone throughout human history.

I don't know if previous generations understood this, and took second-hand reports of distant places with a grain of salt and a serious eye towards the reputation of the reporter, but evidence suggests they did not understand this.

Today's commentary about deepfake videos seems to be along the lines of, you didn't understand this, and now you have to reconsider how much you can really trust reports of stuff beyond the horizon.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Or a video of a missile hitting the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 ?
A video of Rodney King striking police officers before his beating?

The ability to more effectively disseminate propaganda is not disconcerting to you?

People are either critical thinkers or they aren't. Shedding the illusion that video is somehow excellent proof of truth is more of a good thing than a bad. It will compel people to use their brains more and eyes less.

 

[Belz...]

As Distracted1 just pointed out, we've always had this inability. Deepfakes are just doing for video news what has always been the case for printed news.

...which is to say that we actually didn't always have it.

 

[Butter!]

As Distracted1 just pointed out, we've always had this inability. Deepfakes are just doing for video news what has always been the case for printed news.

Yes, but deepfakes are likely to make the situation even worse.

Since you are theprestige, I will offer an analogy for you to shred . We have always had the ability to stalk people. At any point in the past, a person obsessed with another person could take steps to learn that person's routine (perhaps lurking outside their home, going through mail or trash, hiring others to find out information, etc.).

Nowadays, we have social media. Many people post an astonishing amount of content about their lives and routines on these profiles. As a result, it is easier than ever for stalkers to assemble data for nefarious purposes. A person being cautioned about posting too much personal information might respond, "So what? There have always been stalkers." Yes, there have. But now things are easier for them.

 

[Distracted1]

People are either critical thinkers or they aren't. Shedding the illusion that video is somehow excellent proof of truth is more of a good thing than a bad. It will compel people to use their brains more and eyes less.

Until recently, video often was excellent evidence of truth. Nothing is being shed, it is being taken.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, but deepfakes are likely to make the situation even worse.

Since you are theprestige, I will offer an analogy for you to shred : D. We have always had the ability to stalk people. At any point in the past, a person obsessed with another person could take steps to learn that person's routine (perhaps lurking outside their home, going through mail or trash, hiring others to find out information, etc.).

Nowadays, we have social media. Many people post an astonishing amount of content about their lives and routines on these profiles. As a result, it is easier than ever for stalkers to assemble data for nefarious purposes. A person being cautioned about posting too much personal information might respond, "So what? There have always been stalkers." Yes, there have. But now things are easier for them.

I was all set to take your analogy in good faith, but I'm honestly having trouble figuring out how it relates to the issue under discussion. Deepfakes make what situation worse?

 

[theprestige]

...which is to say that we actually didn't always have it.

I don't follow your reasoning. Reports of events beyond your horizon have always been subject to misrepresentation, bias, ignorance, etc. It's a myth that you used to be able to trust the news without question, and that deepfakes have done away with that happy circumstance.

That happy circumstance never actually existed.

 

[Butter!]

I was all set to take your analogy in good faith, but I'm honestly having trouble figuring out how it relates to the issue under discussion. Deepfakes make what situation worse?

The situation of there already being a bunch of lies out there and fake news already being a problem.

Sorry, I'm multi-tasking and may have read a post wrong. If I did, nvm.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you talking about a different video than your link?

No, but if you are more familiar with Zuck I can see why you might have a different view.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Video used to be a very reliable source in many cases. Think of how Policemen are required to carry body-cameras in some places. Deepfakes are the end of that. One step after the other getting deeper and deeper into a technological dystopia... All data becoming digital and easily altered. Images and video unreliable. Post-truth indeed.

But the point is not the video, it's a video from a reliable source. If police released the video from a body cam, I might consider some departments might edit it or show cherry picked segments, but I wouldn't worry the video was a fake.

At least not yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And that's the problem. It's becoming more and more difficult to identify them, and for them to identify other good sources as well.

But why would a fake video be more worrisome than a fake story?

That's why you use trusted sources.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Great. Cue fake revenge porn in 5... 4... 3...

"That's not me, boss, I swear - it's a deepfake."
"Maybe. But I think we're going to go in a different direction."

Apparently fake porn preceded fake political videos.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As demonstrated in Memphis today, fake video is not needed to get a mob riled up. Just rumors and instant social media.

Are you saying the cops didn't kill a person? I'm unclear what your post is saying.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Alls I'm saying "We can now fake evidence with increasingly close to indistinguishable results" would have been more of problematic thing if it had happened before it was decided en masse that evidence doesn't matter, not after.

It's like objecting to hearsay after the jury's already made it clear they are going to come to their verdict based on reading the entrails of a goat.

Sure hearsay is still bad and shouldn't be allowed in court but... *gestures at jury*

 

[Checkmite]

Until now, however, if a recording existed of a particular incident we had some objective evidence from which to draw a conclusion. Losing that is a tragedy.

I disagree.

The only thing new that deepfakes bring to the table is the ability to fake high-definition video of a person's face, i.e. addressing the camera directly. In other words, the kind of shots that tend to be used in official messages and statements. That these are faked can easily be proven by the person themselves and their publicity agents, who have every real message of this type they've produced on file and can easily prove this video isn't one of them; probably even being able to find the original video that was sourced by the deepfake.

The technology to create convincing fictional lower-definition video, like surveillance video or cell-phone video, has already existed for quite some time.

 

[Distracted1]

But why would a fake video be more worrisome than a fake story?

That's why you use trusted sources.

Until recently a video was independent evidence.
A recording of someone doing or saying something could be trusted as a factual representation of that moment and verified with my own eyes.

Even a trusted source could be mistaken- or dishonest- about what they report to have seen. It's the difference between Billy Bush claiming that "Trump told me that he thinks he could get away with grabbing women by the pussy", and a recording of Trump saying that very thing. (I know that is audio-not video).

 

[theprestige]

I disagree.

The only thing new that deepfakes bring to the table is the ability to fake high-definition video of a person's face, i.e. addressing the camera directly. In other words, the kind of shots that tend to be used in official messages and statements. That these are faked can easily be proven by the person themselves and their publicity agents, who have every real message of this type they've produced on file and can easily prove this video isn't one of them; probably even being able to find the original video that was sourced by the deepfake.

The technology to create convincing fictional lower-definition video, like surveillance video or cell-phone video, has already existed for quite some time.

Not to mention the technology to misleadingly edit video, cherry pick video, misrepresent ambiguous video, substitute similar but unrelated video, etc.

 

[Belz...]

I don't follow your reasoning.

My reasoning is that the disinformation is spreading to previously harder-to-fake media. It's really that simple. Something that was relatively reliable no longer will be.