• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Tech With Deepfake technology etc will evidence at some point stop being evidence?

birdup.snaildown

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 5, 2020
Messages
2,369
Location
Somewhere
What happens when fake approaches real?

When a real apple is the same as a fake apple, is there a difference?
When a real person is the same as a fake person?

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
 
If you're talking about the type of technology that allows for fake audio and video to be made I do believe so. Matter of fact: we're closer to being able to do that with perfection than we may think in my opinion (think quantum computing). This topic has been brought up once or twice before and it was suggested that forensics would be required and be able to differentiate. I don't agree. Sooner rather than later it will get to the point where even forensic technology will not be able to tell the difference. Let alone Joe Public. And then we're in a world of shit. Especially given the speed of transmission nowadays and the wide accessibility to media.

So yep. I believe it will get to a point where audio, video, and photographic images will no longer be acceptable nor reliable evidence in a court of law.
 
If you look at the emerging technologies we are already getting very close.

Some of the graphics programs I use (in alpha) are now capable of manipulating trillions of triangles (elementary part of 3D graphics) at a time with full ray tracing, This very deep set of data points allows exceedingly realistic scenes complete with human characters that are so close to being indistinguishable from reality it's not even funny. It really won't be long now.
 
When a real apple is the same as a fake apple, is there a difference?

if there is no way, in principle, of distinguishing them, then i think that by the identity of indiscernibles (Leibniz law in philosophy, but it is applied to physical systems like electrons too), they are the same.

whether a perfect simulation of a system differs from the actual system is a philosophical problem. some argue that we are more likely to be existing in a simulation than an actual, physical universe, so in that case, a perfect simulation would be identical to the system being simulated. in other cases, it depends on what you think about the relationship between abstract 'ideals' as represented in a computer and a real thing.

i think the case of deepfake technology is more clear cut, somebody could make plenty of 'evidence' that i'm currently relaxing on a beach in Bali, but it will never, ever, be the case that i am not sitting on my chair at my desk at this precise moment. it wouldn't matter how accurately you simulated me. plus, would you just be simulating my outer surface, or my brain states? if you could replicate my consciousness in a machine, then that version of me would probably think differently to physical me!!
 
If we could create such accurate simulated realities that we can't even tell the difference between real and fake, then shouldn't that call into question the greater illusion that humanity has always been living in -- Samsara?

What is real and what is fake?

There is only one thing that's real and it's not the world of objects. More fake objects in a world of fake objects doesn't negate or promote anything. I could be sitting on a holodeck tomorrow and the ontological issues would still be there. Who am I?

An illusion in an illusion is just a compounded illusion, but even without deepfake tech, people still suffer from those.

When it comes to virtual reality and audiovisual presentations, it doesn't really matter if it's real or fake, it's if it's the truth. The truth is in each person, it's not out there in the world. Therefore, any new illusion, even a tech one, is still not going to satisfy the deeper dilemma.

In terms of fake food or whatever... nature is way, way smarter than humans, and much more comprehensive. I believe technology that messes with biology is ultimately going to screw us over eventually. The 20th century was the worst thing to happen to the planet and now we are upgrading all that tech arrogance into the 21st century. Every tech innovation creates bad side effects, new ills, new problems that need new tech. I'm not saying all tech is bad but it may be progressing faster than human society and the ecosystem can cope with. It will eventually lead to systems collapse. If human systems collapse then oh well, that has happened before. If the ecological systems collapse - the ones that took hundreds of millions of years to evolve - we are doomed. No VR will help us.

Nature already made an elegant system for balance. We would be wise to mimic nature as much as possible while not trying to add new non-sense because we think we know better.
 
This is already starting to happen. People are presented with 'evidence' by those they have decided to trust, and although sometimes the information is easily verifiable, there are various levels of falsified video/documents/photos, as well. The simplest form is easier to falsify (though most people don't bother), which is video clips that are edited and rearranged, in order yo misrepresent what the video is supposed to show. Then there are deep fakes which are much harder to verify.

There is misinformation everywhere from both sides.
 
Foreigner said:
nature is way, way smarter than humans, and much more comprehensive

Humans are part of nature. I don't buy into the narrative that the 20th century was a mistake or that tech is bad. We can't know whether or not our place in this system is an accident. If nature is way, way smarter than humans... it seems illogical to make this conclusion.

News media is being manipulated massively via social media. The unregulated distribution of information that the internet provides is frightening. Why wouldn't Russia interfere with foreign elections? It is human nature to claw our way to the top.

But tech is getting so good now that maybe people soon won't take for granted that footage isn't doctored, which will hopefully force some sort of regulation back into the industry?

I'm genuinely surprised there haven't already been more efforts that we know about to manipulate footage, etc. Why doesn't a foreign power or a terrorist release fake footage of Trump or Putin? Are we not quite at the point that this feasible?

I don't believe we are (or aren't) in a simulation. It is impossible to know. I've never understood the argument that it "makes sense" this is a simulation.
 
News media is being manipulated massively via social media. The unregulated distribution of information that the internet provides is frightening. Why wouldn't Russia interfere with foreign elections? It is human nature to claw our way to the top.
Agree fully re: news media and social media. As to how it should be regulated: well guess who is attempting to do just that right this very minute! 🇷🇺 And look at how the rest of the world is crying foul. And all he is trying to do is hold social media to account when it comes to providing a platform for promoting and selling narcotics, suicide, and child porn online. Not regulating deep fake and non-existent shit.

On the topic of interference: you should spend some time looking up a nice chap by the name of Yuri Bezmenov (albeit that he should have had his wings clipped). That'll be a learning experience and not to mention an eye opener. And believe me: it's old stuff. While the core concepts may remain: you can be sure that the methods have been finely tuned and honed since then.

And for the record (and maybe a time saver for your other little thread): should give you an insight into yours truly here (I'm not that hard to figure out). Let's just say that what you perceive as "fence sitting" is something else entirely.


But tech is getting so good now that maybe people soon won't take for granted that footage isn't doctored, which will hopefully force some sort of regulation back into the industry?
See above and below (skipped over this one while typing the rest). I don't know how you regulate this. And I put it to you that people will see what they want to see and won't be generally questioning anything and everything that appears on their screens.


I'm genuinely surprised there haven't already been more efforts that we know about to manipulate footage, etc. Why doesn't a foreign power or a terrorist release fake footage of Trump or Putin? Are we not quite at the point that this feasible?
Yeah. This is the type of shit I'm truly worried about and what I was referencing in my earlier post on this thread. I don't think we're there yet but only in the sense of technically. But it will not be long before this will be possible and nobody, not even forensics, will be able to distinguish the difference. There's already shit out there on this topic and with demonstrations. And even although it's not quite perfect: add a bit of video and audio noise and a carefully chosen title and you could still be home free. There's not a lot of people who will watch a video and pull it apart at the seams i.e. they would take what they're seeing as gospel and the video and audio noise added would probably add to the authenticity.

This is dangerous shit. A possible real world example that could play out right now. Can you imagine if a video was released right now in which Xi Jinping was shown, in a party conference, declaring war on America and noting that he has authorized military strikes on those carriers in the South China Sea (courtesy of the USA and the UK). And then somebody takes control of a reputable Chinese media outlet and broadcasts it under that guise. From there it goes to FOX and CNN and the BBC (and who would far rather get the shit on air as soon as possible, so as to not be outdone by the others, and fact check after the fact). Impossible? I don't think so. Bearing in mind that proving it to be fake would take time. And while I'm sure the big red telephones would be ringing: the damage would already be done insofar as the public is concerned. Worse still: what if this was repeated a few times. One day and when it's the real deal: people would ignore it and take it with a grain of salt.

I don't know how you combat this especially once the technology has been perfected. Only archaic method I can think of is to delay the visibility of uploads and broadcasts i.e. in order to give the powers that be the time to verify what's going on. In much the same way as radio stations used to (I think some do) use broadcast delays (just in case somebody loses their shit or uses an inappropriate word i.e. they can edit it out before it goes out on air). Then again: it's the dinosaur speaking here i.e. maybe there's another way or two or three. Whatever the case: this is a real danger.


I don't believe we are (or aren't) in a simulation. It is impossible to know. I've never understood the argument that it "makes sense" this is a simulation.
This I don't get and never will. I simply don't have the mental capacity to grasp this concept maybe? If there is any truth to this though: seems to me the core OS needs updating i.e. must still be on Windows ME (arguably the worst MS operating system ever). Because as things stand now: it's pretty fucked, unstable, and full of bugs! 🤣
 
Thought this was interesting:
According to cybersecurity firm Sensity, deepfakes are growing exponentially, doubling every six months. Of the 85,000 circulating online, 90 percent depict non-consensual porn featuring women. As for the creators, a quick look at the top 30 on one site reveals deepfakers all over the world, including in the U.S., Canada, Guatemala and India. Of those who list their gender, all except one are male.

 
Thought this was interesting:


Well that is unbelievable. I guess there's everyone's answer right there.

Interestingly enough and as a side note (as it relates to the article and the proposed EU and the UK legislation):

There has already been a submission (last year) to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the USA. Doesn't seem to have gone anywhere as yet. But if amended: site owners and hosting companies could be held liable (even criminally) for harmful content.

In taking a flier: I guess there'll be a thousand and one arguments as to what constitutes harmful content and what doesn't. And there'll be the freedom of speech and expression arguments too I guess. If said amendment is made: the first cases, and therefore precedents, should be interesting.

I have posted about this before but it didn't seem to be of interest to anybody so left it at that. But I did find myself wondering what, if any, impact it would have on a harm reduction site such as this.

Could lead to the closure of CEPS because fuck me that can be harmful and do your head in if you don't have your wits about you! 🤣
 
Re: porn deepfakes, if I remember correctly celebrities have already started to sell their image. They go into massive studios and are filmed from 360 degrees, moving in different directions and saying different phrases and making different facial expressions. As technology advances, this will become more common. In the future, people will own other people's image and use it as they please. Obviously, with the porn deepfakes, there is no consent... but I think this sort of thing will be normalized over time.

dalpat077 said:
impact it would have on a harm reduction site such as this

I wouldn't be surprised if this website causes more harm than it reduces.
 
Well for the record (and my tongue in cheek comment about CEPS aside): I wasn't being flippant about the possible impact here. It's actually pretty serious shit. Don't ask me how I know!

Whether or not it's appropriate to have a debate about it given that nothing has gone any further I know not. And it's blatantly obvious that it's totally off the topic of this (your) thread.
 
I don't believe we are (or aren't) in a simulation. It is impossible to know. I've never understood the argument that it "makes sense" this is a simulation.

I agree. Th discussion about whether we live in a simulation can be nothing but conceptual. I don't buy anyone saying we have evidence, it's just a thought experiment. We certainly could be. In fact I believe, essentially, that the universe is dreaming and our lives are its dreams. It's just what I've arrived at. But I'd never say I have proof or even evidence other than subjective experiences.

It's an interesting discussion, but not really one you can "win".
 
The tech for deepfakes is already here, it has some very scary implications. Check it out:

I think that we will have to think of new ways to assess evidence and will have to be much more vigilant in terms of what exactly constitutes credible evidence.
 
The tech for deepfakes is already here, it has some very scary implications. Check it out:

I think that we will have to think of new ways to assess evidence and will have to be much more vigilant in terms of what exactly constitutes credible evidence.

Amusing as it may be it is scary shit. Zuckerberg took me totally off guard.

It may not be perfect. But it’s perfect enough if you’re not specifically looking out for it.
 
Top