Hacker News Reader

Comment by tsukurimashou | Hacker News Reader

So, where do we exactly draw the line with these things? Considering everything you see on media has been altered in some ways. To me it looks like the same problem as "fake news", how do you define "fake news" considering every piece of news has at least some bias from the person that wrote it.

I think it would be a better idea to educate people about these things, just like when "Photoshop" and other similar software started to pick up, a lot of people started creating "fake images", nowadays I feel like most people are aware that you cannot trust a picture, because they can be so easily edited.

View on HN

> I think it would be a better idea to educate people about these things

This argument is nonsense an innefective. Try and explain to your elders about what a deep fake is, and how to identify one.

The movie : "The Irishman" used a lot of the technology successfully to take years off the cast.

Applying labels to known false media is not the same as an opinion based 'fact' or alternative facts.

So don't come with this absolute strawman point of : "Ooo where is the line." - The line is at fake. Always has been. Whats been blurred is the idea that Facts are not Facts.

They are. An opinion is not a fact. A deepFake is Fake. Hence the name. And its about time people grew up and used their intelligence to realise whats a FACT and whats not a FACT. Whats real and whats fake.

It's a shame its up to companies like Twitter to do this for everyone, but clearly too many people believe everything they see & hear without question.

> and other deceptive media

Ok where's the line on deceptive media? A deepfake obviously has concrete criteria to identify it. What about a little spin? Cropping out a piece of a picture or a few seconds of a video? Muting a crucial bit of audio? What about that silly scenario where a reporter goes out in a kayak to show flooded streets and a cheeky passerby walks behind them in knee-high galoshes? Those all seem deceptive. I don't trust Twitter to have my best interests at heart when deciding. Then again, I don't use Twitter so I don't really care.

> What about a little spin?

If the 'spin' consists of a lie, then how could you even consider it true ? 10% false and 90% truth does not result in a diluted truth or half truth:

'Half True' is an oxymoron. The content is take as a whole.

If I said to you : "You need glasses with a light on them because at night its always dark" - Thats spin.

If I said : "The sun is gone forever so you need glasses with a light on them" - Thats bullshit.

Use your common sense. And if its a 'grey' area then you can't call it fake can you ?

https://media.tenor.com/images/c731ffc70a71d8a89b5e3581953f9...

A personal overconfidence in what is true and untrue is exactly why I’m against these types of censorship policies. If you don’t think personal bias can bend and distort your personal, non-objective “truth” then you haven’t been paying attention to history.

Refer back to a cropped image or video. It's not a lie, it's a truth shaped to fit a narrative.

> This argument is nonsense an innefective.

Yeah man, we should just go on like that, remove more and more responsibility from people until they are tame enough that you can just give orders and they follow.

One problem is determining truth. The person enforcing the rules like this is not objective and does not know everything.

Lets say Politician A implies something without explicitly stating it. If Politician B said that A said what he only implied is B then lying? What happens if A then says B is lying about him saying it.

Is A lying when he said he didn't say it? Is B lying when he said A said something?

I am extremely dubious stuff like this could actually be done objectively. Sometimes A would be accused of lying and sometimes B would be. The rules would not be applied fairly and equally.

> The movie : "The Irishman" used a lot of the technology successfully to take years off the cast.

Personally, I did not find the use of the "technology" to be "successful." Like so many other ridiculous gimmicks used in movies to attract the attention of the press and the Academy, it may have at times achieved its very singular visual goals, but that doesn't matter one bit. Because you can't make Al Pacino and Robert De Niro - both in their 70s now - act like 30 year-olds.

Without the massive press push about this technology, the film would have likely suffered a lot more ridicule about this "de-aging" tactic. Hollywood will not be able to convince me that they have actually achieved something good here, until they are able to prove this is not just technology meant to expand the lifetime value generated from their beloved aging actors, for whom they have no true planned replacements.

You don't even need to edit the picture. All you need is just pick the right picture.

Just pick a few pictures where A1 was holding A2's hand, and where B1 was not holding B2's hand. Now you have a story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com