It still looks wrong. There's still some of the floating/stuck-on head feeling about it.
Or is that just because we already know it's fake from the headline?
(... and the way that the flag moves is totally wrong .../s).
But think of the general US electorate. How many of them, seeing this clip on the news as they prepare dinner, would know it’s fake?
The technology to fool someone who has the TV on in the background has existed forever. You could do it with a stunt double. The problem is fooling everyone such that "this video is faked" doesn't become a bigger story than the fake video in the first place.
Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.
Also, it isn't difficult to imagine a future where people are criticized for correctly identifying deep fakes.
[1] "Troll" as in "derailing tactic used by people who don't know or care if it's really fake or not" simply to be extra-clear. In politics, throwing out chaff and using derailing tactics to make it effectively impossible to have certain discussions in open fora can be a good way to prevent inconvenient ideas from being spread, in addition to the usual tactics around sowing uncertainty and confusion among the enemy.
So people may push fake stories to make what they believe to be a justified point.
I'm not convinced deepfakes will be that big of a problem because people already believe things that aren't real (and don't believe things that are real) without the help of technology.
That's the problem: These people can now parade proof when there isn't any, perhaps even rally to garner majority and dilute out actual facts.
> (and don't believe things that are real)
For instance, refusing to acknowledge deep-fakes despite being labeled as such...?
Imagine if Trump could claim that the "Grab em by the $#@%" tape was a fake, or if Biden could do the same about the tape of him bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.
This won't change much compared to now. There are videos of Trump saying something, then in an interview he denies he ever said that. People believe that he never said those things and real proof is dismissed. What I'm saying is, people believe lies even when there's no proof and when there's video proving that what was said is a lie.
This is too good.
This is going to cause problems. Many, many problems.
We already have issues with what is real and what isn't, when you can still trust video for the most part. I am not excited to see what this does to society.
It's one of those - just because we can, does that mean we should - sort of scenarios.
We’re opening Pandora’s box like a kid on Christmas morning.
However, there are some clear give-a-ways that may or may not stick around, priming at least myself into identifying a deep fake from not: His movements do not line up with the way muscles work in the human body. In a single direction it works, but how he bounces back would cause a lot of neck strain, so no one would do that.
Also there's a line across his cheek in the closeup and the bottom left hand corner of the mouth fades into a blurry mess once or twice. The deepfake look generates blurry results for blending.
The President really does give a speech or make a comment, but 50% of the electorate is sure it's a deepfake.
Do authentic TV recordings of Nixon have that same quality?
But I’ve seen things look off like that in real life under certain lighting conditions so I would’ve waved it away.
The tight shot, however, was really good. I'm not sure I'd think it was fake if I wasn't primed for it.