A Deepfake of Mark Zuckerberg Is Testing Facebook's Fake Video Policies (vice.com) 118
samleecole shares a report from Motherboard: Two artists and an advertising company created a deepfake of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg saying things he never said, and uploaded it to Instagram. The video [...] shows Mark Zuckerberg sitting at a desk, seemingly giving a sinister speech about Facebook's power. The video is framed with broadcast chyrons that say "We're increasing transparency on ads," to make it look like it's part of a news segment.
The original, real video is from a September 2017 address Zuckerberg gave about Russian election interference on Facebook. The caption of the Instagram post says it's created using CannyAI's video dialogue replacement (VDR) technology. When a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi spread on Facebook, the company said that if someone posted a manipulated video of Zuckerberg like the one of Pelosi, it would stay up. Now that there's a deepfake of Zuckerberg implying he's in total control of billions of people's stolen data and ready to control the future, on Facebook-owned Instagram, that stance will be put to the test.
The original, real video is from a September 2017 address Zuckerberg gave about Russian election interference on Facebook. The caption of the Instagram post says it's created using CannyAI's video dialogue replacement (VDR) technology. When a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi spread on Facebook, the company said that if someone posted a manipulated video of Zuckerberg like the one of Pelosi, it would stay up. Now that there's a deepfake of Zuckerberg implying he's in total control of billions of people's stolen data and ready to control the future, on Facebook-owned Instagram, that stance will be put to the test.
One Word (Score:5, Funny)
Awesome. Awesome to the Max.
(Okay that’s five words. Plus seven more. )
Re: (Score:1)
It's like when we call someone a "stable genius".
Re: (Score:1)
Odd. Right now, Both Fox and CNN web have a headline about John Stewart "choking up" about federal funding for 9/11 responders. So, pretty much the opposite of what you describe - an SJW talking to an FN viewer.
That's gotta be a meta(-meta?)-deepfake. What legitimate news organization (or Congress) would place some entertainer on the front page in relation to a serious issue, as if their opinion mattered more than the next random person you run into on the street? That
Re: One Word (Score:4, Insightful)
9/11 responder care is not John Stewart's cause. (Score:2, Insightful)
" What special knowledge does he have of the issue? " He was there, he witnessed the disaster, he interviewed people who Republican "patriots" vote repeatedly to ignore and cut funding to. He's a mouthpiece for the issue by choice.
You're not anywhere near "minor celebrity" NOR scholarly researcher, mind you. And frankly Stewart is both, he's entirely well informed about Congressional funding issues related to 9/11, certainly compared to your ass.
9/11 responder care is not John Stewart's cause, that's Ame
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're being a GOP whattaboutist moron (Score:1, Informative)
Yeah pick one Democrat and whatever you do don't research to find out why he wasn't there, right?
California Rep. Eric Swalwell told TIME that he was at the Department of Justice at the TIME of the hearing.
You know he's on the judiciary and intelligence committees? He's investigating a traitor and just got access to critical Mueller evidence related to Trump's crimes, was in the process of taking possession of it.
If you haven't noticed, the DOJ is stonewalling CONGRESS. Yes, Jon Stewart knows he has the support of Swalwell, who signed on ALREADY.
Over 300 in the House have already signed on. THE FACT THAT REPUB
Re: One Word (Score:4, Insightful)
FTR, if you want to ban people who used to have a TV show from politics, that's absolutely something I can get behind
Re: (Score:1)
well they should come up with a different name and get the fuck off my justice.
Are deepfakes necessary? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It's a problem because it could be used as a false flag to, say, cover possible issues of AWOL by presenting videos/papers implying there was legitimate concerns raised that apparently disappeared without response. The counterintel thing to do is always to make more noise so you can never know what the signal is. It's happening everywhere you look. You could argue all you like that we should judge Zuckerberg by his actions, and that should be good enough. There's a reason, though, that prosecutors want
Re: (Score:2)
It is to have deepfake videos out there that are causing a PR problem to facebook, as well as for politicians, on the side of politics that didn't pay for cambridge analytica's facebook campaign.
Politics is more sensitive to PR than being a FANG, but if fake anti-FB videos becomes the national sport, it may influence FB's fake video policy.
Re: (Score:2)
They are working extremely hard on deep fakes and not to use them to create false narratives but the kill the truth with claims of deep fakes. That is their goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, you are mistaken.
I spend time watching people's behavior withing my circle of friends,
and I've noted the following.
If your group is consistent debate, and fact validation, you'll reply with I know the behave that way.
If your group is about camping and hiking, you'll reply with, I did no know that.
If your group is about liberal thinking and social volunteering, you might think facebook and it's group is for finding extra people to volunteer.
So if you are a slashdot reader, the knowledge of who is 's
Re: (Score:2)
If your group is consistent debate, and fact validation, you'll reply with I know the behave that way.
Tip: get an English speaker to go over your posts before you click SUBMIT.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What's happening now is a ...'shedding of irrationality'. A looong time ago, this irrationality first started creeping into the world, slowly, in the same way that infection starts slowly. And in the end, in order to get the infection out, you have to cut the skin, there's usually some violent explosion/pain, ...then relief. Today, the skin is cut, and the infection is coming out. It's the most painful of times, the explosion isn't happening as fast as we'd like, but relief is the next step. This is th
Re:Are deepfakes necessary? (Score:4, Informative)
Democrats will create a "deep fake" of Trump calling blacks the N-Word and women bitches.
Why wouldn't they just use a real one [thedailybeast.com]?
It's fake, doesn't matter.
It doesn't given there's real ones.
But damn, will it fuck up his pole numbers and will cost him a 2nd term.
His voters know he's racist and sexist. Even if they did share it, it wouldn't funck his pole numbers up from amongst his base.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you realize that there are a large number of users on this site that are not from the US, and being that they are not from the US, they use a variant of english that we don't or english is not their first language? Mistakes are going to happen as they don't have masters degrees in english or humanities that can't get them a job but, give them 'perfect' english.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the Americans that keep going on about their President's polling.
Thanks for supporting Trump, jackass (Score:1)
See? That is why nobody believes you. That is how Trump got elected the first time.
"Democrats will create a "deep fake" of Trump calling blacks the N-Word and women bitches."
You respond with a claim that there already is a real video of that with a link of that not happening from a biased source that is little more than a heavily politically paid blog.
Why should anyone believe you when you lie and provide the evidence that you are a liar in the same sentence?
Trump will win again. People will be shocked. "Ho
Re:Are deepfakes necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh I dunno, maybe because nobody has ever come up with any actual tapes, just articles like the one you linked to quoting someone who claims someone else has a tape?
Re: Are deepfakes necessary? (Score:1)
LOL, no real tape of Donald calling women names? Really?
Re:Are deepfakes necessary? (Score:5, Informative)
To take the stance that "Because I'm famous, I can use that as a reason to grab genitals", is to take a stance against humanity, in my opinion.
This is the exact quote from Donald Trump (referring to Arianne Zucker):
I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything.
This is well documented. You can see it all here [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Nice moving of the goalposts. That's not the same claim OP made, and I'm very comfortable you understand that. Feel free to provide a link to support that claim -- I'll not hold my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Not moving the goalposts, just pointing out where they are. You seem to think that someone that feels that, because of their fame, they have the right to grab genitals, is different than someone who's a racist bigot. I'm very comfortable that you understand how absurd that is.
Re: (Score:1)
Democrats will create a "deep fake" of Trump calling blacks the N-Word and women bitches. It's fake, doesn't matter. But damn, will it fuck up his pole numbers and will cost him a 2nd term.
Pole numbers? ROTFLMAO
Dems don't need to fake it. Twitler's already done it for reelz. Or near enough. David Duke's his buddy. He's on tape saying he just grabs the bitches "by the pussy."
Aren't you paying attention? Clearly not. Those things didn't cost him his first term.
But hopefully the fact that Biden is up 20% nationally over the douche is what will cost him. Nobody likes a loser, and Twitler is emerging as the biggest loser of them all. Wish I'd had a dad that had given me a cool billion to piss down
Re: Are deepfakes necessary? (Score:1)
Pelosi's video was not a deepfake (Score:2)
Pelosi's video was a compilation of her talking. It was a real video. Deepfakes are obvious because even the latest "AI" (neural network or statistical heuristic, not really intelligence) has issues recreating more than a believable still.
Re:Pelosi's video was not a deepfake (Score:5, Informative)
Pelosi's video was a compilation of her talking. It was a real video.
It was not a real video, it was doctored. But yes, also not a deep fake.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000006525055/pelosi-video-doctored.html
Re: (Score:1)
Paedoguru and his low-iq 0-information cohorts tried to say over, and over, and over again that the video wasn't even doctored, lol. This is Republicanism before you, shitting itself in public and telling you to lick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pelosi's video was not a deepfake (Score:1)
Re: Pelosi's video was not a deepfake (Score:2)
Pelosi's video was not doctored (Score:5, Informative)
Pelosi's video was a compilation of her talking. It was a real video.
It was not a real video, it was doctored. But yes, also not a deep fake.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/... [nytimes.com]
The original video retweeted by Trump was simply a compilation - clips of her speaking with no modifications, and no slow-downs.
Subsequent posters made videos of her that *were* doctored in various ways, but the original one was not "doctored" in the sense that the videos were altered. It was simply a series of clips.
Note that the MSM stated that the original video was doctored when it wasn't - it was a case of people trying to put doubt in the viewer's mind.
On a related note, saying the original video was doctored and then releasing doctored videos seems like a good way to propagandize something. We should be on the lookout for that tactic, since it might be used in the upcoming election. A video of Candidate A saying something racist 20 years ago, Candidate A says the video was doctored, and at the same time several doctored versions show up on the web.
The new "deep fake" technique could have all sorts of uses.
Re: (Score:3)
Clipping things together IS doctoring a video, unless you make it very clear how the clipping was done. They did not do so.
Or are you stupid enough to think that removing the word "not" is not bullshit?
Re: (Score:1)
Doctoring is defined by intent: change the content or appearance of in order to deceive; falsify
If words such as "not" which make a big difference in the meaning of a statement are deliberately removed to make it appear as if someone is saying the opposite of what they are, then yes, that video is doctored. If words are removed because you're recording a film and you're editing the dialogue as part of that process, you're not doing it to deceive, therefore that's not doctoring. So, he's right, you're wrong,
Re: (Score:2)
The Simpsons had their own take on creative "editing" [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"has issues recreating more than a believable still."
That was last month's level of technology.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pelosi's video was a compilation of her talking. It was a real video. Deepfakes are obvious because even the latest "AI" (neural network or statistical heuristic, not really intelligence) has issues recreating more than a believable still.
So enough to mimic someone like Hillary but not someone more animated and life like?
Re: (Score:2)
Hilary is not animated in any sense of the word.
Not even reanimated?
And yet... (Score:1)
Those videos will still be more convincing than Mark Zuckerberg himself.
Great Caesar's ghost (Score:4, Insightful)
"We think you did it," said the man with bracelets and a baton on his belt.
"It wasn't me," replied the bewildered accused, "and I'm leaving since there's no way you could charge and detain me with no evidence."
"No evidence?" chuckles the interviewer. "What about this video?"
Re: (Score:3)
Checks video -- weaksauce. Everyone knows you can make a video of anyone doing anything these days.
Tap..tap... tap... click... tap tap tap... see? Now you are in the video instead of me.
welcome to the 'post video evidence' world (Score:1)
where only might makes right. Basically we will be back in 'pre video camera' era soon if there are no measures to ensure authenticity of videos. For example:
1. you are charged with a murder and you are related to important people? No problem, be more careful next time :) We don't really care about that 'evidence', it was clearly created and planted by our opponent.
2. police finally get to relax again, no more annoying cameras watching
3. .... use your imagination and read some history books on how its 'done
Re: (Score:2)
"My voice is my passport. Verify me."
CBSN? Really? Showing all the cards there? (Score:1)
I have a hard to buying that such a reveal would break on CBSN. While CBS News has tried hard to have low political bias, they still seem to have editorial bias. We have had plenty of proof in the past that CBS will take part in editorial interference [theverge.com] to make sure CBS and it's subsidiary "journalist" provide a message that helps the CBS agenda.
A message that using data to manipulate is the path to controlling the future goes against CBS a couple ways: