Prediction: Deep fakes and a post truth society

[Nimos]

This unit must survive

That made me think of the Wargames movie, what a masterpiece

It not from that is it?

 

[Stevicus]

That made me think of the Wargames movie, what a masterpiece

It not from that is it?

It's from a Star Trek episode, "The Ultimate Computer."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't think that's all quite accurate. There are news sources and there are news sources, after all. And with experience, we come to learn which ones tend to provide real information, backed up by carefully vetted sources. Not perfect, but it's something. I've been reading papers all my 74 years, and I can tell you which journalists I trust and which I don't.

There are reliable sources and unreliable sources -- and you can work out which is which:

1. Reliable sources have links to verifiable, current evidence, unreliable sources do not.
2. Reliable sources use language that is clear of bias, unreliable sources do not.
3. Reliable sources mention the author’s name and information, unreliable sources do not.
4. Reliable sources have clear motives, unreliable sources do not, or have discernable hidden motives.
5. Reliable sources are written with professionalism, unreliable sources are not. They are reviewed before they are published, so if you see grammar and spelling errors, bet against reliability.

Just trying to work out how to properly word my response here, so that we can best understand where each other is coming from.
First of all, I have no trouble with anything you've written, and I agree with your points 1-5.
At the risk of sounding a little condescending, though, I'd suggest that's not quite what the OP is talking about. It's more...well...how would you apply the rock solid logic from how you have been able to traditionally assess news sources to a future world which is almost...but not quite...on us.

So, as indicated, you're older. I absolutely don't mean that as a pejorative. I'm late 40s, and what you wrote largely matches to how I assess what I read and consume. But I also have teenage kids. They simply don't read long form news and views type pieces, and nor do almost any of their friends. My eldest will happily trawl through a 400 page novel, but an editorial?
I spent the first ten years of my career buying newspapers, but I wouldn't even bother subscribing to one now, despite consuming more political news than previously.

What the OP is referencing more specifically is the increasing ability of technology to produce video which is edited without trace, or even more-so, completely faked without trace. This technology largely exists today, and is accessible to anyone, including you. It takes some effort, and the results are not (yet) without trace, but we're not projecting, here. This is real, commonly available, and can be learnt by anyone with patience. Within a few years it will not even require patience (the tech will get simpler) and be harder to trace. Eventually, it will be seamless.

So, when thinking about how people are consuming their news, and when combining that with the ability of anyone to create even quite complex video of anyone saying or doing pretty much ANYTHING (and I'm not overstating that), it does get a little hairy.

As I mentioned elsewhere today, this isn't about being able to fool all the people, all the time. Those who take care, stay calm, and apply some rules of assessment for everything they are reviewing or seeing will be generally fine. But this is about being able to fool some of the people more often. A clip of a legit AOC speech with a small amendment to make her comments more extreme is much more effective than the current common journalistic practice of sound-biting without proper context.

Hopefully I've communicated my thoughts clearly. Deep-fakes will completely change the information landscape, and not for the better.

 

[Heyo]

Prediction: in the near future, deep fakes will be so advanced that it will be impossible to tell if a video is faked or real. We will not be able to trust what we see on our screens as being real. We will live in a post truth society.

In the near future, manipulated photographs will be so advanced that it will be impossible to tell if a photograph is faked or real. We will not be able to trust what we see in our newspapers as being real. We will live in a post truth society. - Prediction from 1860

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the near future, manipulated photographs will be so advanced that it will be impossible to tell if a photograph is faked or real. We will not be able to trust what we see in our newspapers as being real. We will live in a post truth society. - Prediction from 1860

Always interesting to bring in a historical perspective, and part of why I don't like 'post-truth'.

But what's your opinion about the likely impact of deep-fake technology as it is perfected?

 

[Secret Chief]

Garry Kimovich Kasparov? 1997. Chess grandmaster from Russia beat by deep blue. I remember it - the day computers surpassed us. To fear? Or... Carpe Diem - from games of chess to games of atoms. To cure corona, to cure cancer, to fight wars... look on bright side, could be a very good future for us.

I'm trying. But then I'm programmed to.

 

[paradox]

Prediction: in the near future, deep fakes will be so advanced that it will be impossible to tell if a video is faked or real. We will not be able to trust what we see on our screens as being real. We will live in a post truth society.

I don't think so.
There are already various "anti fake" teams whose only job is to discover fakes.
Some news papers and media platforms even employ people whose job is to unmask fakes and they announce "fake news" as news with the aim to unmask them to the public.
AI doesn't seem helpful with that but may be improved.

 

[Mock Turtle]

We already have an issue with many just absorbing that media which suits their current beliefs and/or political persuasion, and deep fakes will no doubt make this easier for them to be fooled, but I think it is on the timescale issue that effects might be seen - where there is no time to tell if something is real or not and hence which might propel some course of action not based in truth. Another issue is with regards to porn fakes, and where almost anyone could be the subject of this - currently mostly celebrities - and where this could be so damaging to the personal lives of so many.

I don't know how we could solve this issue, apart from future AI perhaps being capable of detecting such. Or we could enact laws to make doing such fakery a serious criminal offence.

 

[Secret Chief]

Just trying to work out how to properly word my response here, so that we can best understand where each other is coming from.
First of all, I have no trouble with anything you've written, and I agree with your points 1-5.
At the risk of sounding a little condescending, though, I'd suggest that's not quite what the OP is talking about. It's more...well...how would you apply the rock solid logic from how you have been able to traditionally assess news sources to a future world which is almost...but not quite...on us.

So, as indicated, you're older. I absolutely don't mean that as a pejorative. I'm late 40s, and what you wrote largely matches to how I assess what I read and consume. But I also have teenage kids. They simply don't read long form news and views type pieces, and nor do almost any of their friends. My eldest will happily trawl through a 400 page novel, but an editorial?
I spent the first ten years of my career buying newspapers, but I wouldn't even bother subscribing to one now, despite consuming more political news than previously.

What the OP is referencing more specifically is the increasing ability of technology to produce video which is edited without trace, or even more-so, completely faked without trace. This technology largely exists today, and is accessible to anyone, including you. It takes some effort, and the results are not (yet) without trace, but we're not projecting, here. This is real, commonly available, and can be learnt by anyone with patience. Within a few years it will not even require patience (the tech will get simpler) and be harder to trace. Eventually, it will be seamless.

So, when thinking about how people are consuming their news, and when combining that with the ability of anyone to create even quite complex video of anyone saying or doing pretty much ANYTHING (and I'm not overstating that), it does get a little hairy.

As I mentioned elsewhere today, this isn't about being able to fool all the people, all the time. Those who take care, stay calm, and apply some rules of assessment for everything they are reviewing or seeing will be generally fine. But this is about being able to fool some of the people more often. A clip of a legit AOC speech with a small amendment to make her comments more extreme is much more effective than the current common journalistic practice of sound-biting without proper context.

Hopefully I've communicated my thoughts clearly. Deep-fakes will completely change the information landscape, and not for the better.

Random connection. Can you get BBC dramas any way? If so, I highly recommend The Capture. (Don't watch a spoiler trailer, just trust me on this goddamit!)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just trying to work out how to properly word my response here, so that we can best understand where each other is coming from.
First of all, I have no trouble with anything you've written, and I agree with your points 1-5.
At the risk of sounding a little condescending, though, I'd suggest that's not quite what the OP is talking about. It's more...well...how would you apply the rock solid logic from how you have been able to traditionally assess news sources to a future world which is almost...but not quite...on us.

So, as indicated, you're older. I absolutely don't mean that as a pejorative. I'm late 40s, and what you wrote largely matches to how I assess what I read and consume. But I also have teenage kids. They simply don't read long form news and views type pieces, and nor do almost any of their friends. My eldest will happily trawl through a 400 page novel, but an editorial?
I spent the first ten years of my career buying newspapers, but I wouldn't even bother subscribing to one now, despite consuming more political news than previously.

What the OP is referencing more specifically is the increasing ability of technology to produce video which is edited without trace, or even more-so, completely faked without trace. This technology largely exists today, and is accessible to anyone, including you. It takes some effort, and the results are not (yet) without trace, but we're not projecting, here. This is real, commonly available, and can be learnt by anyone with patience. Within a few years it will not even require patience (the tech will get simpler) and be harder to trace. Eventually, it will be seamless.

So, when thinking about how people are consuming their news, and when combining that with the ability of anyone to create even quite complex video of anyone saying or doing pretty much ANYTHING (and I'm not overstating that), it does get a little hairy.

As I mentioned elsewhere today, this isn't about being able to fool all the people, all the time. Those who take care, stay calm, and apply some rules of assessment for everything they are reviewing or seeing will be generally fine. But this is about being able to fool some of the people more often. A clip of a legit AOC speech with a small amendment to make her comments more extreme is much more effective than the current common journalistic practice of sound-biting without proper context.

Hopefully I've communicated my thoughts clearly. Deep-fakes will completely change the information landscape, and not for the better.

I don't disagree, but to a fair degree, I'm pretty sure that I'm not taken in by "deep-fakes," and I'm willing to bet that may well be true of you, too, along with many other people. Some folks are, I know, naturally prone to believing stuff that others would consider silly. I don't know why that is, but you see them right here in the forums, and you see them on the nightly news.

How do you and I manage not to be fooled? Well, one of the other points about skepticism (which I failed to make in my post) is not only checking your source -- but trying to see if that is the only source, or are there corroborating sources out there. I happen to like YouTube, but there are thousands of titles I never even bother to click on because, along with the shock value of the subject, and the multiple exclamation marks, I note that this is the only one of its kind. And I happen to think that if something truly big was happening, or had been discovered, it would be all over the place in no time. And if it isn't, I'll wait patiently until I see a bit more corroboration.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Prediction: in the near future, deep fakes will be so advanced that it will be impossible to tell if a video is faked or real. We will not be able to trust what we see on our screens as being real. We will live in a post truth society.

We already do.

 

[Stevicus]

She doesn't really have a mustache, but with these deep fakes, who can really tell?

 

[Heyo]

Always interesting to bring in a historical perspective, and part of why I don't like 'post-truth'.

But what's your opinion about the likely impact of deep-fake technology as it is perfected?

I don't see the main impact in news. Deep fakes are just Photoshop for videos and deep fake news are just another form of fake news.
Where I see trouble brewing is in the entertainment industry. A director could fake an A-list actor without paying them, or "resurrect" actors (which has been done without deep fakes, more or less successful). Add a library of moves and emotions and you don't need any actors any more.
It will eventually settle down but only after some high profile court cases to determine who owns and who can use the likeliness of an actor.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I was just talking about this exact scenario with my wife yesterday.

We're moving in quite the scary direction.

It's the future from this point on.

I'd say we will be in a dystopian society within the conclusion of this century. Of course I'll be dead by then and won't care.

 

[Twilight Hue]

She doesn't really have a mustache, but with these deep fakes, who can really tell?

I can't. A totally different person! That's truly incognito.

 

[syo]

in the near future, deep fakes will be so advanced that it will be impossible to tell if a video is faked or real. We will not be able to trust what we see on our screens as being real

Good. It will confuse disgusting evidence, and modern society will get destroyed. It's about time.