DeepFake

I just heard about this machine learning software that can overlay a face onto another person's body pretty convincingly in videos. It's called deepfake and although its mainly being used for porn and memes right now, what kind of implications could this type of software have when its fully realised? What are your thoughts lain¿

Propaganda, of course. I'm crawling into a bunker now, living my days on canned peaches and beef jerky

>>7838 >I'm crawling into a bunker now, living my days on canned peaches and beef jerky reminded me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2Oh3mlGHEc >>7837 expect to not take any video seriously... you could realistically fake anybodies face and tie anybody to any activity. intelligence agencies have already been using fake footage/images for propaganda for decades. your ex wants to frame you for a crime? gets someone to do it, then puts your face over it, reports you. trying to make someone unfit for politics? put their face in the background of an antifa/alt right video make a fake hostage video, extort money form peoples families who think their family member is in danger (this will also make social engineering all the more convincing- skype faces that cannot be trusted) phishing will be 15x easier living with full face masks when

What if this tech means that no one can trust anyone anymore? Why interact with someone online with a webcam when it could be someone completely different with a voice changer and a face swap? Why meet up in person when any spying party (government or otherwise) could face swap to make it look like you were meeting with a member of some extremist group instead of your brother or coworker. Everyone will have to wear masks to protect themselves from this. No one will truly interact. Now that the technology is democratized, anyone will be able to engage in this kind of warfare, not just big corps and state actors. This tech is actually pretty terrifying, lain.

>what is cryptography and web of trust. Your ignorance fascinates me, larping kiddos. PGP signatures have been existing for 30 years by now. This is exactly how you get a proof of validity.

>>7849 >Why interact with someone online with a webcam when it could be someone completely different with a voice changer and a face swap? I haven't looked into it but I really doubt this works in real time so webcams should still be ok. >any spying party (government or otherwise) could face swap Governments have always been able to fuarrrk up any citizen they want whenever they want. That shouldn't be part of your threat model. It does add new capabilities to people with less power than governments though which is interesting.

>>7849 Although i was joking when i said >>7838 Only big governments and corporations/nobles or hackers will have any reason to do this Nobody's gonna cat fish you for your money when they have the cash to build a computer that can real time deepfake AND do a convincing voice change >>7854 >PGP Signatures Yeah but the issue here is that those who aren't tech savvy will just believe it, like the "stoners giving out free edibles" that everyone flipped out about last halloween. It's the level of stupidity that allowed most major historical events, not people who knew what to do. Hitler wouldn't have become the awful dictator he was if people weren't dumb enough to believe his scapegoats.

>>7859 The only thing PGP signatures prove is that someone is in control of a private key. I am not going to sign an image of me doing something bad and my enemies can sign a fake just as easily as a legitimate so cryptographic signatures are irrelevant to this kind of problem. >>7854 is either an idiot or pretending to be an idiot to get attention.

I'm interested in how this will effect evidence that can be used in court. For example if someone robs a store, and replaces the robber with you, that would likely convict you in court. Since you nor the robber took the video, neither of you signed it. This would be especially bad if the person taking the video was malicious, because they could sign the fake video with their key. This tech could make video evidence get excluded from the trial because there would be no way of validating its content. Although it is likely video evidence will someday be excluded completely, its unfortunate than quite a few people will be framed this way before then, since its so easy to do. On the upside, the first big case of this that appears on trial will probably make national headlines. Maybe this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and people will finally take control of their privacy.

>>7862 dna, fingerprints, and lie detectors arent nearly as trustworthy as people think, but people still believe it works just fine. If someone uses this it'll get by.

there will become fake people on the internet and other crazy stufff watch for Lain when that happens ....

>>7862 The most likely thing is that the accepted criteria will be the opinion of specialists who can allegedly state if a certain video was doctored or not by analyzing it, then the specialists will be controlled by the powers that be, which in their turn will get to decide quite freely what is true and what is not. Anyone outside the official branch who comes forward with evidence that a certain verdict wasn't true will be labeled as a conspiracy theorist, and only some niche online groups will believe them, no matter how convincing the evidence, while general populace won't give a fuarrrk and just run with the official statement. Applying this same principle to past history was how the entire myth of the modern world was constructed, and now they'll have the power to recontextualize and rewrite the immediate present with the same popular acceptance of what they have been doing to the past. One interesting idea to fuarrrk up at least to a point the setting up of this future scenario, would be to as of right now, before this starts happening, go on to spreading some fake recordings of things big enough to gain a lot of mainstream attention and see them debunked on the public eye, so the ordinary joe gets somewhat accustomed to the idea of first believing some footage, then discovering it was bogus so the method itself arrives first to the public eye as something not to be trusted. In a way, the porn people and the attention they're getting achieve this in a small scale, but not enough because porn is seen as meaningless, so no one cares enough. The right way would be to spread things with real-world impact, like a video of a president slapping some of his employees, or snorting some coke. Stuff that would grind their gears, challenging the world they're used to, and then have to come back to the idea of no, it didn't happen. I'm not saying this would be enough to prevent that dystopian scenario from happening, but it would definitely reeducate the public through exposure in a way that would make the lies less powerful whey they start rolling, so anyone doing something like this wouldn't be doing anything less than god's work at this moment.

We're fuarrrked. You're worried about fake news now? CGI is becoming less and less noticeable in movies now. Your 15 year old nephew can automate the process to putting politcians into porn videos with Deepfakes, with Lyrebird you can make them say things they never said. It's not perfect now, but this stuff cropped up fast. Imagine 10 or 15 years from now? There will be a iPhone App that does it for you. Want a dead celebrity to show up at your birthday party in a video? Buy their face and voice pack for $1.99 in our new app! Your parents won't be able to tell! And frankly, nor will anyone else. It's fuarrrked. You can make a politician give a speech that they never gave, supporting laws that they don't support. And they have no way to prove themselves innocent. Want people to say "Yes I was there at the speech, and he really said this."? Easy, you can fake an army of those too. Hell, that happens on Twitter right now. And there's literally no actual way for anyone to know otherwise. It's fuarrrked. Inversely, a politician who actually does give a speech which everyone hates, can just say "I didn't give that speech! It was faked!" And you can't really call them on it because there's no way to prove either case.

>What are your thoughts lain¿ My thought is I want to figure out how to do it. I've only done a little bit of digging, so correct me if I'm wrong. The program everyone is using is called FakeApp. Despite the stupid name, it's an (open source? homebrew?) gui wrapper for this thing: https://github.com/deepfakes/faceswap ...made buy some guy that goes by /u/deepfakeapp on reddit (this might be his github https://github.com/fakeapp ). Anyone try messing around with this stuff? Want to fill me in on some of the historical details? I promise I won't make fun of you for being on reddit.

>>7876 >You can make a politician give a speech that they never gave, supporting laws that they don't support. i think it would go something like this >be 2020, a cyberpunk future >watching TV on your holoscreen >commercial comes on >stupid political adds >"this is an urgent message to all voters" >"while in office republican congressman paid to watch a man have sex with a horse while he mansplained and stareraped a femenist intern" >an audio script causes your phone to enable your smart phone to link into your amazon voice assistant, causing it to bring up a link to the video of the politician watching said degenerate acts. >all supported by pornhub >"see that was terrible..." >"you should vote for candidate ladydude. xe supports you being who you want to be and does not enjoy such awful acts" closing is a modified video of the politician saying he approves of the message just kidding, it would probably be faked videos of politicians hitting kids with shovels

>>7881 Videos of politicians hitting kids with shovels to "Take On Me" by A-Ha.

>>7885 someone please make this a reality now...

>>7837 Photoshop has always been a thing. The fact that images can be faked is not news.

>>7889 but it can now be faked with 2% the effort as previously...

>>7889 this is about video lol