Further potential for falsification of reality

[[DHT]Osiris]

I've posted about this before, but I like to keep current on events. I personally feel that before very long (<5 years) we as a populace will have the potential to outright fabricate videos of events taking place. Machine learning and computing capacity is marching ever-closer, as seen in the following:
https://hothardware.com/news/nvidia-neural-network-generates-photorealistic-faces-disturbing-results

Machine-rendered photos, which indeed could provide the capacity for 'bigly crowds' in still photography which never existed.

For video, we have the following:

Given the very clear intent behind nation-states all over to manipulate in a more 'peaceful' manner, the events of other nations, how does one combat such a thing? How do you confirm an event .. any event.. if all evidence of said event, including photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts, can be manufactured?

 

[fskimospy]

I've posted about this before, but I like to keep current on events. I personally feel that before very long (<5 years) we as a populace will have the potential to outright fabricate videos of events taking place. Machine learning and computing capacity is marching ever-closer, as seen in the following:
https://hothardware.com/news/nvidia-neural-network-generates-photorealistic-faces-disturbing-results

Machine-rendered photos, which indeed could provide the capacity for 'bigly crowds' in still photography which never existed.

For video, we have the following:

Given the very clear intent behind nation-states all over to manipulate in a more 'peaceful' manner, the events of other nations, how does one combat such a thing? How do you confirm an event .. any event.. if all evidence of said event, including photos, videos, and eyewitness accounts, can be manufactured?

Would we not do something similar as to how photographs are currently examined to see if they are manipulated by photoshop or not?

 

[Atreus21]

Eh, maybe someone'll come up with a way to digitally sign photographs to indicate whether they've been tampered with. In fact I'd be surprised if there isn't some protocol like that already.

Or maybe the government can just ban digital photography.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Would we not do something similar as to how photographs are currently examined to see if they are manipulated by photoshop or not?

Possibly, but the photos above were never 'photoshopped' as they didn't exist to begin with. There may, presently, be a way to discern artifacts (in fact some have very visible ones) but considering it's just software, no reason that cannot be resolved in time.

Eh, maybe someone'll come up with a way to digitally sign photographs to indicate whether they've been tampered with. In fact I'd be surprised if there isn't some protocol like that already.

Or maybe the government can just ban digital photography.

See above, these aren't tampered photos, they are CGI. In theory you could have a 'news station approved' stamp on a given photo and just implicitly distrust any not from an approved news station, but that's a bit scary too, since it mandates trusting the news station...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Possibly, but the photos above were never 'photoshopped' as they didn't exist to begin with. There may, presently, be a way to discern artifacts (in fact some have very visible ones) but considering it's just software, no reason that cannot be resolved in time.

See above, these aren't tampered photos, they are CGI. In theory you could have a 'news station approved' stamp on a given photo and just implicitly distrust any not from an approved news station, but that's a bit scary too, since it mandates trusting the news station...

But when it comes to big events there are different sources. They will have vastly different representations of reality. That should raise some questions.

Yeah i said that and then realized the existence of Fox News and just wept a little.

 

[interchange]

Lots of press that has been proven false still sticks and has lasting effect. What might be more helpful is a way for social media to verify authenticity in real time prior to posting altogether.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

But when it comes to big events there are different sources. They will have vastly different representations of reality. That should raise some questions.

Indeed, and how do you discern which is correct? Newsstation_with_agenda_a? Newsstation_with_agenda_b? Or potential_russian_troll_online_151223? What if all 3 conflict?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Indeed, and how do you discern which is correct? Newsstation_with_agenda_a? Newsstation_with_agenda_b? Or potential_russian_troll_online_151223? What if all 3 conflict?

One newsstation would be an outlyer from all of the others. You might be expecting too much dishonestly. Don't buy into Trump and his bullshit narrative that the media is all lying.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

One newsstation would be an outlyer from all of the others. You might be expecting too much dishonestly. Don't buy into Trump and his bullshit narrative that the media is all lying.

I'm reaching outside the US with this, not just within, and I don't buy a single thing Trump says (in fact, I generally believe it to be a lie until presented evidence otherwise).

The potential for propaganda is huge with this, considering most members of larger nations don't reach outside their own country for news. How hard would it be to get public support for something drastic against a nation if a 'tape' were 'leaked' concerning an opposing nation's leader stating something when they didn't, with dissenters being drowned out by the foaming throng?

 

[Atreus21]

Possibly, but the photos above were never 'photoshopped' as they didn't exist to begin with. There may, presently, be a way to discern artifacts (in fact some have very visible ones) but considering it's just software, no reason that cannot be resolved in time.

See above, these aren't tampered photos, they are CGI. In theory you could have a 'news station approved' stamp on a given photo and just implicitly distrust any not from an approved news station, but that's a bit scary too, since it mandates trusting the news station...

Well, if any image coming out of a digital camera was stamped with a signature, anything not coming from a camera would not. Such as CGI. Therefore you could assume the image was created, not captured.

Just talking theory here.

But then I suppose someone could create a CGI image and take a digital photograph of it. I don;'t know.

 

[Jaskalas]

With enough development in the related technologies, photos could be signed and unsigned at will. That's only, currently, an iffy solution at best. With complete control / falsification soon to follow.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Bumping this, since there's some new relevant information to add.

Apparently a user (posted on reddit) managed to use some machine learning software to superimpose a 'cgi-ish' face of Gal Gadot (Wonderwoman lady), among others, into various porn videos. It's got some bad artifacting in some parts, but it's also rather well done considering one guy was working on it. I can imagine that this could move very, very quickly into territory where raw falsification of video events become the norm, or at least a norm enough to question most things you see in video form.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-porn

Video isn't included in that, however it's easily locatable. There is a gif included from it however (SFW) showing the general implementation.

 

[bshole]

Could they do this to porn? Could porn be faked?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Could they do this to porn? Could porn be faked?

See below...

Bumping this, since there's some new relevant information to add.

Apparently a user (posted on reddit) managed to use some machine learning software to superimpose a 'cgi-ish' face of Gal Gadot (Wonderwoman lady), among others, into various porn videos. It's got some bad artifacting in some parts, but it's also rather well done considering one guy was working on it. I can imagine that this could move very, very quickly into territory where raw falsification of video events become the norm, or at least a norm enough to question most things you see in video form.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-porn

Video isn't included in that, however it's easily locatable. There is a gif included from it however (SFW) showing the general implementation.

 

[mect]

In areas with state controlled media, this could indeed exacerbate an already significant problem. In regions of the world with a free press, I don't think this is too serious considering news agencies would still need to be concerned about their reputation. If you have multiple primary sources contradicting video evidence and it became a pattern, a news agencies reputation would be crushed. It could definitely raise Breitbart and Infowars to a whole new level.

 

[bshole]

See below...

So people are jacking off to fake porn..... scary.....

 

[Jhhnn]

One newsstation would be an outlyer from all of the others. You might be expecting too much dishonestly. Don't buy into Trump and his bullshit narrative that the media is all lying.

I agree. Bullshit artists, con artists, create reality distortion fields to suit their purposes. Trump is easily the world's greatest living bullshit artist. Objective reality is merely an inconvenience for his purposes.

 

[pmv]

Presumably we are eventually just going to be returning to the era before photography, with video or photographs being no more regarded as definitive depictions of reality than a hand-drawn picture or painting was?
Just as you'd never have taken someone's quick sketch as 'proof' that the event shown really happened, we won't be able to treat photographs/video in that way either. Everything will be regarded as a human-mediated representation.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So people are jacking off to fake porn..... scary.....

Well, the 'fake porn' aspect isn't even a huge concern to me, we've had anime and 'characters' (even if it's just an actress playing whatever character) for .. decades? To me it's more the capability of a program to just make a reasonably legitimate video of a person at an event, regardless of whether or not they were there. What's to stop someone from slandering another by conjuring up a video of them committing a crime? How does one defend against a video showing you, your face on a body that looks like yours, performing an act?

Just as you'd never have taken someone's quick sketch as 'proof' that the event shown really happened, we won't be able to treat photographs/video in that way either.

This would probably have to be the case. It'd be a culture shift I think to get people off the bandwagon of 'video = it happened' and we'll have some folks fall through the cracks, but hopefully rationality would prevail in this regard.

 

[pmv]

Well, the 'fake porn' aspect isn't even a huge concern to me, we've had anime and 'characters' (even if it's just an actress playing whatever character) for .. decades? To me it's more the capability of a program to just make a reasonably legitimate video of a person at an event, regardless of whether or not they were there. What's to stop someone from slandering another by conjuring up a video of them committing a crime? How does one defend against a video showing you, your face on a body that looks like yours, performing an act?

I suppose the difficult phase will be the intermediate era, when such fakery is possible but rare and difficult, and where most images are still taken as real 'evidence'. But if and when it becomes ubiquitous, we'll just be back where we were before the camera was invented.

Edit - on the plus side, no-one will ever again be able to respond to posts with the comment 'pics or it didn't happen'.

 

[bshole]

How does one defend against a video showing you, your face on a body that looks like yours, performing an act?

For me personally, my face on just about any other body would be a step up. As long as they put me on a young athletic body I guess I wouldn't be too upset.

 

[mect]

I suppose the difficult phase will be the intermediate era, when such fakery is possible but rare and difficult, and where most images are still taken as real 'evidence'. But if and when it becomes ubiquitous, we'll just be back where we were before the camera was invented.

Edit - on the plus side, no-one will ever again be able to respond to posts with the comment 'pics or it didn't happen'.

For legal purposes, they could easily prepare file formats that don't permit video editing/manipulation (maybe its already out there?). Yes, it could always be broken, but any reputable organization caught doing it would be crushed.

 

[bshole]

For legal purposes, they could easily prepare file formats that don't permit video editing/manipulation (maybe its already out there?). Yes, it could always be broken, but any reputable organization caught doing it would be crushed.

I was about to say the Fox News or the Republican Party would not be crushed but then noticed the qualifier "reputable organization".

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

For legal purposes, they could easily prepare file formats that don't permit video editing/manipulation (maybe its already out there?). Yes, it could always be broken, but any reputable organization caught doing it would be crushed.

Does that mean that unprotected video is inadmissible in court, as it could be tampered with? What about civilian videos of law enforcement wrongdoing? Will the 'new standard' for video evidence hinge on specific (licensed) file formats, or camera types, which prevent tampering to a reasonable degree?

 

[Jhhnn]

Does that mean that unprotected video is inadmissible in court, as it could be tampered with? What about civilian videos of law enforcement wrongdoing? Will the 'new standard' for video evidence hinge on specific (licensed) file formats, or camera types, which prevent tampering to a reasonable degree?

In general, video corroborates testimony.