Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

devi83 t1_jdrmu2v wrote

Yes deepfakes are capable of fooling some people. Not everyone of course.

57

Z3r0sama2017 t1_jdsaipz wrote

Not everyone yet

It's only a matter of time I think till we get something so good that only the Lizardmen Constant folks get it right.

15

devi83 t1_jdscl2u wrote

I forsee BCI's enabling people to download brain plugins that have the latest checkpoints to be able to detect the latest deepfakes in the future.

4

TarTarkus1 t1_jdtahe2 wrote

A lot of people can potentially get fooled, I'd say. This may enter the realm of politics, but look at some of the recent faux arrests of the "oompa loompa" and some of the reactions to it as an example.

3

Mercurionio t1_jduayoy wrote

There were images of Trump being violently arrested. Some of them were pretty realistic if you look in bad quality.

1

Weltkaiser t1_jds4v2z wrote

Have you read the news today? Google: "Pope Francis in a white puffer jacket"

54

Frostii_ t1_jdsqhx6 wrote

Hah I saw this pop up here in reddit earlier, didn't evennquestion if it was real, just thought ok....who cares.?? Dude was cold lolol

22

ArgosHound t1_jdtqeov wrote

I thought it was real, didn't even question it. The future is going to be great.

8

Rk3h t1_jdulo1n wrote

in the fashion era I didn't even second guess it. I just thought damn the Pope's cool af

1

Buuhhu t1_jdu7c6c wrote

honestly just skimmed through some posts and just saw it and thought "neat" and went on, didnt think more deeply on it, and that may be the biggest reason people are fooled... If you stop to read/think about it a bit more many times you can figure out something is wrong, but we are definitely reaching points where you cant just immediately see something is off about a picture. video deepfakes may still take a bit. but i havent actually seen how far they are on that front.

2

Weltkaiser t1_jdu7xbu wrote

r/deepfakes was banned 5 years ago due to sharing involuntary pornographic videos that were absolutely convincing at the time. 5 years ago, let that sink in.

4

WideCardiologist3323 t1_jdtfnww wrote

Thats not a deep fake tho? thats an AI image.

−2

cosmernaut420 t1_jdtk128 wrote

Functionally, what's the difference.

11

WideCardiologist3323 t1_jdtnd64 wrote

Well deepfake is limited to what the video clip or the person that was used was doing. AI will be able to generate images that are other wise impossible, in the future, likely extreme detail.

−3

Weltkaiser t1_jdu1zgi wrote

This future is now. Also it could very well be a deep fake, we don't know how they created it. If you use prompt by image, you are definitely already in deep fake territory.

4

Brittainicus t1_jdujl10 wrote

Deepfakes use AI to generate their images using machine learning
methods through training a data set. Its just that AI is now able to copy more than just photorealistic styles as well now.

1

GreenSoapJelly t1_jdrsoaz wrote

Yes, I think they are currently realistic enough to fool a lot of people. If you look close with a skeptical eye, you can usually recognize them. Many people aren’t going to look closely with a skeptical eye, especially if they have no reason to expect a fake.

16

3dom t1_jdrqi2c wrote

They've certainly made it much easier to convince people that the real stuff is fake if it doesn't suit your needs (intercepted phone calls + videos and photos from hacked phones and whatnot)

12

aeusoes1 t1_jdrr2hk wrote

We can bridge the gap with fakereals, videos that look fake but are actually real.

10

D_Ethan_Bones t1_jds1c90 wrote

When I was learning video editing at the turn of the century from someone who studied film while Blazing Saddles (1974) was in production (WIP presented to a class he was in) - he lectured us extensively on the fakeness people expect.

A lot of the things he told me are probably outdated by now, because they're the issues that 20th century equipment imparted into film.

11

RachelRegina t1_jdu5xtb wrote

Not shallowreals?

1

aeusoes1 t1_jdv4cfk wrote

I thought of that, but it didn't really sound right Probably because the "deep" in deep fake is short for deep learning.

1

RachelRegina t1_jdwop7h wrote

Yes I'm aware lol, I was just being surface-level clever

2

EmGem-Kona t1_jdt92n6 wrote

Maybe this is how the internet dies - It becomes so untrustworthy that it becomes unusable

7

Exelbirth t1_jdsggp7 wrote

People were recently fooled by fakes of Trump being arrested (though, I think that was AI generated rather than deepfake) and I've seen a deepfake of Joe Rogan endorsing something that is just shy of convincing (the cadence and tone were both off enough that you could tell). We're there, the question is how many people are fooled rather than are people fooled.

5

Klarthy t1_jdslzpx wrote

Keep in mind that a lot of creators of fake content will also use artificial means (bots) to boost their content's visibility/engagement. While some will fall for it occasionally, it's being amplified by fake voices.

4

Exelbirth t1_jdtml89 wrote

That's not really comforting, given humanity's tendency to "go with the crowd." Does it matter if the crowd is fake, if the fake crowd can manipulate people into believing falsehoods, because "so many people can't possibly be wrong?"

We saw this with chain emails back in the day those were a big thing. Using bots on social media to boost the visibility of something is just the newest version of that.

4

Trelonis t1_jdsngq1 wrote

Absolutely. The guys from South Park put together a video that shows just how good it can be. https://youtu.be/9WfZuNceFDM

5

theqofcourse t1_jdubhus wrote

Brilliant and hilarious! Great job of deep faking and this was 2 years ago. More recent examples within the past year have been very hard to distinguish. For all I know, everything could be deep faked now and I'd not even know it.

1

TorthOrc t1_jdtdxrk wrote

We are approaching the time when a child can receive a video phone call from their mother saying to come to a particular address right away as they are hurt, and the child has to make that decision of “Is this really their mother, or a kidnapper using tech to kidnap kids?”

4

Shittyusernameguy t1_jdvdi33 wrote

As a father of 3: Holy shit that is scary as fuck. I don't want to imagine this, but here we are hey.

2

Verygoodcheese t1_jdruhso wrote

Oh they definitely are fooling people.(influencers) I had something sent to me this weekend by a friend. Turned out I know the influencer in real life.

I only knew it was her through work details and name. She looks NOTHING like her videos and images.

It was amazing. I scrolled through her years of videos and a few years back it mostly looked like her, a slightly idealized version, but it’s gotten so drastic that I even found a video explaining away the transformation.

Well it’s bs she still looks like she always had only 7 years has passed and she got lip filler.

3

StraightOven4697 t1_jds26hp wrote

Yep. Just recently learned the presidents don't actually play online games together. Bummer.

3

MoobooMagoo t1_jdtirfa wrote

Probably.

Although I personally find it funny that this basically thrusts us back to the early days of the internet where no one ever trusted anything. Or at least you weren't supposed to trust anything. And people not trusting what they see / read on the internet is probably a net positive for the world.

3

booleanito t1_jds95jk wrote

I think the tech savvy audience can tell the difference, but there is always a subset of population who cannot tell the difference. As long as these companies can capture these unsophisticated audience and turn into a profit, they are all set. As long as their intention is not bad and business is not bad.

2

Susan-stoHelit t1_jdtra6b wrote

I don’t think most will be able to tell. It’s not unsophisticated people - no blaming the audience for being fooled by something that is very nearly indistinguishable from reality.

1

booleanito t1_jdtruk9 wrote

Deepfake detector

There are tons of deep fake detectors

1

OutOfBananaException t1_jdua2l2 wrote

A detector can be used to fine tune the generation until it passes, so you're going to end up with a lot of false positives (never mind how fake a lot of real photos look due to filters, which makes the task more difficult).

1

booleanito t1_jducpjd wrote

It is like any disease test (false positives in covid test), or fake news detection(mistakes in snopes.com) . We are gonna have an arms race between detectors and evaders. It occurs in all areas, deepfake is just one of them.

The current detector uses blood movement to tell if it’s human. Current deepfake technology cannot fake natural episodic blood movement, it takes a long way to go for fake authentic blood movement that is indiscernible to human eyes.

The excerpt from the previous link “”” assessing what makes us human— subtle “blood flow” in the pixels of a video. When our hearts pump blood, our veins change color. These blood flow signals are collected from all over the face and algorithms translate these signals into spatiotemporal maps. “””

2

twisted_cistern t1_jdsamm0 wrote

I read about a company that turned off their chat bots and a lot of lonely people complained saying they didn't care it was fake

2

cronedog t1_jdspj1s wrote

Not caring is different from not knowing.

1

Susan-stoHelit t1_jdtrftv wrote

We’ve known that for awhile. Eliza style AI actually does reasonably as a therapist.

1

Zer0pede t1_jdsxbw7 wrote

At least for the first one, lots of people suspected if I recall. They saw odd things like the way her hair intersected the helmet and her hands and arms looked too old and masculine.

2

DestinedDestiny t1_jdth5i4 wrote

It's all pixels. If you take a picture of a celebrity and open it in photoshop, photoshop will give you a bunch of pixels that make up that image.

Given enough time, an artist could place each individual pixel on a blank canvas, recreating what is 'exactly that picture,' not 'sorta like it,' but pixel for pixel the exact same thing.

Now add to that, that a video is just picture after picture, all an artist needs is time to create each frame. Change the artist to an a.i. and now you need less time.

Other tools like green screen and motion capture just make it all easier and faster.

Deepfakes, when sufficiently advanced, should be indistinguishable from reality. I personally believe the technology is already (and has been) there, behind certain closed doors and question things like 'was juice wrld ever even a real person or are music corporations using a.i. to build narratives to sell music with a story' and if not yet, will they soon?

2

[deleted] OP t1_jdro2kw wrote

[deleted]

1

DriemLaif t1_jdrp1sz wrote

Seems like it would fall somewhere close to identity theft

1

BigMemeKing t1_jds9541 wrote

No, absolutely not! Just like you know for a 100% absolutely bor none fact, that I am indeed an actual living human person who does what people say I do. Right?!

1

alienorangecircle t1_jdsszab wrote

If you watch the Elon Musk deepfakes, they're very believable.

1

TechnicalOtaku t1_jdt8s7k wrote

if you know what to look for they're still fairly easy to catch/notice, but those are really low end deepfakes. the genuine good ones that take considerable computer power are a lot more difficult to spot but you can still notice, give it another 5-10 years though and i am afraid you'd need almost an anti-deepfake algoritme to spot them.

1

[deleted] OP t1_jdtnqhh wrote

[deleted]

1

TechnicalOtaku t1_jdtoey3 wrote

basically they paste a full face onto another face. even if they do it convincingly there are still some issues around the exterior of the faces, so past the eyebrows etc. if it was a painting, look between the framing and the face. there will be something that doesn't look quite right. is this case, look for the hairline and the eyebrows. if something between those look a bit odd. it might be fake. i know it may seem vague but once you catch it, you'll understand what i mean.

1

DanFradenburgh t1_jdti4yx wrote

I got one of myself on my YouTube channel and subreddit. I used it to speak in a Glasgow Scottish accent.

1

Lubadbitches t1_jdtkyrf wrote

People think anything they see on the internet is real

1

BlogeOb t1_jdtoyro wrote

Before deer fakes we used to fall for doctored photos all the time

1

Upstairs_Expert t1_jdu2dd4 wrote

If you think the deepfakes made by humans are realistic, wait until you see the deepfakes created by AI.

1

boxen t1_jdu39tt wrote

People generally aren't overly concerned with determining the accuracy/truthfulness/realness of whatever they are looking at. Social media is completely full of heavily filtered, edited, and photoshopped images. There are a whole lot of faces, asses, waists, and entire bodies out there that look absolutely nothing like the images representing them.

Even the text and just the general presentation of reality is suspect. Looking at someones Facebook or Instagram doesnt show their real life, it shows a highlight reel that is heavily edited.

Deepfakes are a drop in the bucket compared to all this. It's very easy to trick someone that is lied to basically 100% of the time already.

1

drlongtrl t1_jdu4yu9 wrote

I don´t think faking a picture or video makes a big difference when for most people, written lies are perfectly sufficient. Media outlets, politicians and others have long since been lying to people just by writing the lies down or saying them into a mic. And people believe it, form their opinions based on it and even act on it. No need for visual proof whatsoever.

1

randoperson2021 t1_jdu5fui wrote

This whole deepfake thing could get way out of hand.. Just waiting for it to.

1

KamikazeArchon t1_jdu6lgd wrote

The answer to the title is "yes, obviously." Because you're asking just "can", which is easy. You have to ask a more precise question.

Can you fool some of the people some of the time? Absolutely.

Will you fool all of the people all of the time? No, and that will likely never happen (at minimum, because some people have access to deepfake-detection systems).

What you probably want to know is "what percentage of people can you fool, what percentage of the time?" And there's an additional potentially relevant detail - "how much does it cost to do this"?

Pretending to be someone else has been possible, and successfully accomplished, for centuries. Makeup - in the professional theater sense - can completely transform someone's appearance. The addition of technology to the "I look different" toolbox simply gives more options for speed and efficiency.

We've also had, from the very first days of photography, the ability to fake photos. And to do it well. Same thing for film; by spending enough resources, you can always fake something extremely convincingly.

The trick is not in whether it can be achieved, but in how much it costs. In particular, when and where we cross the "inflection point" that "identifying a fake of quality X" becomes more expensive than "creating a fake of quality X" - which may arrive at different times for different values of X.

1

Individual_Ad_3036 t1_jdu9krc wrote

there are tricks to detect a deepfake but a human watching at normal speed wont notice them.

1

BerylTorie t1_jdudmm7 wrote

Fight fire with fire. We can use AI to recognize deepfakes.

1

RRoyale57 t1_jdvh6x1 wrote

Yes especially people who have never heard the term deep fake. Kids and elderly will be fooled the easiest.

1

sprucecreek2007 t1_jdyt59s wrote

The next election is going to be scary with deepfakes. YouTube and all these social media companies need to be a step ahead.

1

GoodieScarlet2777 t1_jdsy4w7 wrote

Nope...experience ppl learn. There r nuances. I will tell u who be would be the best at this. AUTISTIC CHILDREN. But Americans so far behind...calling this and that. Woke wars.

−3

Murse_1 t1_jdrrw1d wrote

Yes, deepfakes can fool the unwary and the less intelligent.

−6

D_Ethan_Bones t1_jds1fgb wrote

In other words, deepfakes can conquer republics.

11

Sanity_LARP t1_jdtdnu3 wrote

It's overkill really. You don't need fancy technology to dupe us.

1