among other things, such as fabricating evidence, disapproving evidence and so much more extremely dangerous uses. you dont like a new government policy? oh look! we have a video of you having intercourse.
@@amerlad Well said! Not only government policy but particularly disagreements pertaining to matters of religion and race. Or if people want to discredit you in some way to suit their agenda. It's very easy. Still, people who are close to you usually know you better and which is why these deepfake videos fail to reflect reality over time.
So what? JLO can sing, dance, act, choreograph, and she's got a better body. A woman's physical appearance shouldn't matter that much to you or anyone else. Stop comparing us like objects. It creates a competitive sense between females and we should no longer allow males to do this to us.
Yet the funny thing about this segment is that this information has been widely known for the last several years and has only improved and there's a slight possibility that It has been used with actual results in modern media settings
lol @ "if it makes you feel a strong emotion, either really, really good or very mad take an extra second to check if it's real". Yeah, because people experiencing strong emotions are definitely using logic in that moment and will think to check frame by frame for artefacts and ghosting before they join a bandwagon. lol. The rule in the 90's was, don't believe anything you see on the internet you don't know what is and isn't fake. It continued to be the rule in the early 2000s too. Then suddenly somewhere around 2010 people lost their minds and forgot that the internet is full of misinformation and fakery. If we just went back to the original rule, deep fakes online wouldn't pose a problem to anyone. Hopefully deep fakes might also encourage people to care about their data, about who has their voice print and who has access to their photos. Maybe they'll think twice about using that Russian novelty face swap app, or letting a major company/the government just have their voice print for "security purposes".
There's nothing inherently bad about it? Whaaaat?! What is the usefulness of a technology like this? When is it ever useful to put someone else's face on your face? We live in a sick world. WE NEED GOD. LIFE IS SLOWLY SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL. GOD IS THE SOLUTION
The only good application i can see for deepfaking is replacing a stunt double's face with the actor/actress in movies and tv shows instead of like doing all sorts of scand and rigging for that scan or hiding the stunt double's face
@@PainfulGrowth Considering how often a lot of people put images of themselves online (or, even if they don't, there's lots of people that will intentionally look for pictures of them to display online), I don't think it's just celebrities that are going to be in danger... 0_0
Considering how well social media like TikTok, RU-vid, and Instagram take off due to people posting images of themselves, I doubt it'll hinder people unless they educate themselves of the dangers of deep-fakes. 0_0
@jaep struiksma not from my perspective. The presenter looks more beautiful as she looks more natural than the overly made up “fictitious”image of beauty. The reporter is more real and relatable because of her more natural look.
@@KatariaGujjar no I'm talking about like a celebrity or government officials or someone known. I'm a software engineer I know how to create it and how to know it's a deep fake.
I actually don’t think she looked like Jennifer Lopez. In fact when I watched it at first the sound was muted and I just thought she had the same name as Jennifer Lopez but I will agree this is very dangerous and quite sick actually.
Very interesting but terrifying at the same time I wouldn't want that to ever to happen to me or my friends and family this isn't good there will be so many problems with this
Before anything horrible happens, I hope a global policy is created to protect those who were used for deep fake stuff. Which could involve cyber police maybe. Edit: Honestly it's already seeming to get out of hand but the sooner the better.
Thank you! This is a very good overview on deep fake technology, the only of the thing you didn't mention was the fact that realistic deep fakes are trained on huge data sets of images (10,000's+) like the Tom Cruise deep fakes, where they have hours of footage with a huge range of facial expression and you need to map the face onto someone with a similar facial structure to achieve realistic results.
@B A I agree. The commenter seemed to be trying to make it seem like it's not that big of a threat to anyone other than celebrities with grand amounts of footage, while ignoring the fact that modern phones and social media have driven large segments of the population to create a comparable amount of footage of themselves and post it all online. The commenter doesn't use personal social media like FB? Doesn't have friends on SM so he doesn't know?
Check out this thing bro, Antichrist or as we call him Dajjal in Islam, is known for being the liar and deceiver and Qur'an and Hadith is saying that in the times when he will come, people will not be able to recognise truth from false and vice versa... Looks like world is getting ready for his comming...
Education, education, education. People who can think critically and exercise a healthy level of skepticism are difficult to deceive. New technology, old solutions.
One clue os a deep-fake is that it usually only involves headshots, rarely does a deep fake show a sufficient amount of a person's body because it would then be subject to body language and movements that would not mesh up with the physical makeup of the person being imitated. For example, recognition software used at airports does not look a person's face only - it is watching how a given person actually moves (their skeletal mechanics). So, if you compare a deep fake with known real footage, the deep fake can be sussed out. What Facebook/ Mm eta and other social media are doing is comparing existing footage and still images with new unknown images and rating the similarities and differences. Even if you AI fake a new background, it can be spotted. I am a professional photographer and image editor and I can spot a faked still image with 99.99% accuracy, and I can spot edits in a given real image with 100% certainty. Right now there is absolutely real an unaltered footage of Joe Biden that the White House called fake in an attempt to conceal the fact that the footage is real. This is what I call "level 2 fake." This is where a government tries to convince people that what is real is not real. Imagine the first court case where a prosecutor creates deep fake evidence to get a conviction.
Funny enough the only people I am afraid of regarding this technology is the government. Who knows what kind of devious plans they're going to be able to pull off because of this tech.
