Bill Hader Channels Tom Cruise – DeepFake [video]
youtube.com
youtube.com
https://www.cnet.com/news/parks-and-recreation-ron-swanson-d...
I've been doing ML for audio (Tacotron, WaveRNN, etc.), but haven't stepped into the video world. I also work in film and want to apply this technique to my work.
How do they keep the frames from blurring or not needing to be rekeyed? The motion tracking is spot-on.
Would someone operating in this space be open to meeting over Hangouts or Skype to discuss the tech? I'd be happy to pay someone for a short survey of the space.
This was in the news for being the first(?) public GitHub repo that you needed an account to access. I believe to try and stem the tide of deepfake revenge porn or celebrity porn.
It fooled me on the first view, I just didn't even see it, it was seamless.
It's a little embarrassing frankly. I kept thinking that he's such a good impersonator that he's able to manipulate his facial muscles in just such a way as to embody Tom Cruise.
My defenses are now up a bit higher.
https://youtu.be/aUphMqs1vFw [Full House of Mustaches]
- dating / flirting apps
- job candidates being interviewed remotely via webcams will use software to make them look younger
- "facelift" every television personality (news anchors, etc) and every movie actor. Both for creative purposes (younger/older timeline aging), for vanity, and for extending careers.
- generate fake but convincing political ads to put words in the mouth of opponent that he/she never said
- a growing distrust and skepticism of all videos including archive footage because we never had SHA256 authenticated hash of the old videos widely disseminated before deepfakes became ultrarealistic. E.g. There will be a subset of tomorrows kids that will not be convinced JFK ever actually said, "landing a man on the moon". The WTC towers were never hit by airplanes. All that old footage will be dismissed as fake. Video evidence becomes useless. Yes, society will try to counteract it with software the detects deep fakes but some of the public still won't be convinced. (Same as evidence against anti-vaccine being rejected.)
That's an excellent, and very terrifying point. Governments are going to have a hay-day with misinformation campaigns to rewrite history (even more than they do now).
1. We don't have videos of The Gettysburg address. History existed before video.
2. There will never be another generation (in the near future) like boomers who didn't grow up tech savvy
3. Videos, like any form of documentation, are anecdotal evidence easily manipulated by what's "not in the frame"
4. The general problem you are describing comes from a faulty attribution of truth to video in our current day and age. The sooner we dismiss that the better
Yes, the transition will be awkward, but no need for hysteria.
You're living in a bubble.
Peter Jackson's Bolg and Azog could have been much more convincing, just 7 years on.
Assuming you mean they build up a name and then license their image ... I'm not sure you've met an actor before. This goes against every impulse of a great actor. They're completely obsessed with controlling their image and practicing their craft.
I think you may have meant celebrities.
I'm sure textile workers said the same thing before their skill and craft was replaced by a machine. Every artist and artisan thinks they're irreplaceable. Currently, many programmers think theirs is the only industry that can't be automated because there's some magical golden juice in their minds that produces some creative and intellectual quality no machine will ever be able to replicate. Like textile workers of old, their time will come too.
As much as actors may want their work to be art, their work is also product. When it becomes possible to manufacture an acceptable equivalent product through automation, then artists of all stripes will simply have to adapt to the new terms of the market like everyone else, or find other work. No one is going to care about the effort an actor puts into their performance when it becomes feasible to pay a few dollars to stream Marlon Brando into the original Star Wars.
As long as there are humans, then actors, musicians, dancers, etc will be fine. People are fascinated with artists because they demonstrate a spectacle of skill and a genius which we don't have.
The textile workers replaced by automation were also once extremely rare, talented individuals. Rugs were once prized works of art, infused with culture and artisanal techniques passed down through generations. Now you can buy them at Wal-Mart. Unfortunately, the post-industrial market doesn't optimize for skill, it optimizes against it.
>People are fascinated with artists because they demonstrate a spectacle of skill and a genius which we don't have.
Most people aren't fascinated with skill and genius, they're fascinated with celebrity. Art isn't made to be appreciated nowadays, it's mass produced to be consumed like fast food, with little regard beyond the immediate satisfaction it provides, and the familiar comfort of mediocrity.
Sure, there will always be a place for human artists, dancers, musicians, etc, just as there is still a place for people who can weave rugs. But I do believe that most mainstream art will be automated as soon as the result is acceptable to the mainstream, and that includes automating the persona of the artist as well.
While a lot of cultural products (not art) like movies and shows are created like fast food, people are drawn to them because of the unique talent, charisma, looks, presence etc of the actors that participate. I don't see Avengers: End Game breaking box office records if it didn't have those rarefied individuals.
If you go back to my initial post, I pondered whether the original comment meant celebrity.
Physical features will be cosmetic and plastic, and they will be engineered to match the desired setting.
Acting, as a craft, only ever had coincidental ties to physical appearance. What it really is is the talent of being human. I think what we'll see is a lot of pretty faces who aren't actually that good at acting exiting the business, while upcoming talent won't have its career limited by birth attributes. It should be very interesting.
Yeah, you can see occasional artifacts and glitches with current deepfakes, but surely the software will only get better.
We should add integrity checks and digital signatures to videos.
But, there will definitely be a new cohort of expert witnesses with software tools (functional or just appearing so) to testify about the veracity or video.
As an aside, I feel really weird having completely convinced myself that the original video was deepfaked. It's kind of unnerving given the subject matter.
It probably doesn't help that I am so horrible at celebrities that I couldn't picture Tom Cruise or Bill Hader in my head if I tried, nor do I know what they're famous for. I just know that Tom Cruise sounds familiar and everyone seems to act like Bill Hader is significant so I go along with it.
I guess there's a some change in the face when he switches "voices". It's not nearly as exciting as the one of Obama saying stuff he's never said before though.
Part of the point with fakes like this is it's not just gluing a head on someone else's body, like a bad photoshop. It's actually changing the facial features of the target to resemble someone else.
Photos do not lie, it is said. But frequently they tell partial
truths. They tear moments out of time's flowing river and separate
them from what has come before and what will follow. They can
misrepresent as well as represent.
- JIM HOAGLAND(With making-of.)