Step 1: Use Captcha to get free AI training data.
Step 2: Sell improved AI.
Step 3: Add edge cases to the Captcha that your AI can't handle yet. Go to step 1.
Step 2: Sell improved AI.
Step 3: Add edge cases to the Captcha that your AI can't handle yet. Go to step 1.
When AlphaZero plays against itself it just gets better. Once that spread is so narrow, every deviation is in the range of possible error. And it can’t explain WHY a certain move is better or why the picture is a squirrel. And sometimes it can be wrong, but only on hilarious edge cases, in the rest we just “trust it” because we dont know one way or the other!!
Once deepfakes have covered every possible thing that could give away the deepfake, what remains is dubious arguments as to WHY something is or is not a deepfake. It could be wrong or not, we would just “trust it”?
I am saying that if there a range past the uncanny valley for adversarial AI then once the generative network is there, it’s game over. They can quickly generate any amount of speech said by anyone for example, and we will not know whether they said it or not. All audio and video evidence would be inadmissible without watermarks. And then we would have to trust whoever made the watermark.
In short - mutually distrusting byzantine consensus or signing will be required for any claim.
We then release the tech to the wild without any proposed way to address the problems, instead saying “the problems this causes are outside the domain of CS, so I won’t bother considering them – besides, if I didn’t create these problems someone else would have”
You're definitely right about how little we attend to the consequences of our advancements, especially in the field of AI/ML. This area is fraught with ethical and moral issues that have taken a backseat to the ideal of progress and I think we are making a mistake there.
But otherwise delaying progress what if in the end a more powerful A will eventually make any B and C irrelevant? All you’re doing is kicking the can down the road maybe?
Except this was time consuming and couldn't be done automatically in an undetectable way.
> human societies have survived without video evidence since forever
Stupid argument, we've also survived war since forever, except now a war between nuclear powers would be devastating in a way war historically wasn't. It will absolutely not be the same as it was before photos and videos.
In a society where anything digital can be manipulated, the veracity of a speech or event depends on a network of trust and people who witnessed the event in real life. If someone made a speech in front of hundreds of live, physically present spectators, these spectators can then verify the authenticity of any recording, and as long as there people in that group that you trust (directly, through your trusted network, or perhaps as journalists of good standing) you can trust that the recorded speech is what was said.
Conversely, a recording of a world leader saying they recommend Coca-Cola to prevent tooth decay wouldn't have any credibility at all if no one credible was actually there to witness it.
As an anecdote, I know real humans who do truly believe deepfaked political videos. They were genuinely surprised to know that Pelosi can talk like a normal human.
“A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on”
Aren't they? I can come up with examples off the top of my head, let alone with a search. This is my favourite[1]:
> The fact-checker for the New Yorker who mistook a Marine veteran’s tattoo for a Nazi symbol has resigned, saying the “small mistake” has ruined her life.
"mistook" is being kind. Take a look at her Twitter feed[2] and tell me if you think she's less biased than the stories that would've passed across her desk, because her feed is incredibly partisan. Do you think she managed to remain impartial while she was still employed as a fact checker? I wonder if she intended or wanted to be impartial, let alone managed it. I also wonder how that kind of person comes to be part of a team of fact checkers, which brings into question their impartiality. How was she able to make this “small mistake” and no one else on that team caught it? Perhaps they lack editorial oversight like Snopes[3], the Snopes that employs people who are obviously biased:
> Of particular interest, when pressed about claims by the Daily Mail that at least one Snopes employee has actually run for political office and that this presents at the very least the appearance of potential bias in Snopes’ fact checks, David responded “It's pretty much a given that anyone who has ever run for (or held) a political office did so under some form of party affiliation and said something critical about their opponent(s) and/or other politicians at some point. Does that mean anyone who has ever run for office is manifestly unsuited to be associated with a fact-checking endeavor, in any capacity?”
I'd say it was unbelievable but it's really not[4].
> Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us.
Dropping one's scepticism because someone calls themselves an impartial fact checker strikes me as being in the same realm as following the orders of a complete stranger because they have a uniform and claim authority over you or a situation, i.e. unwise.
[1] https://nypost.com/2018/06/26/new-yorker-staffer-resigns-aft...
[2] https://twitter.com/chick_in_kiev
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
[4] https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635
- Humans can lie
- Human memory is too fallible to serve as this verification, particularly for every detail
- Small details with big impact can be changed in a verified speech without some people noticing
Of course if someone reliable records the actual speech, any copy can be checked against that. I'm not sure why human memory would be considered superior, as humans have poor memories and can lie.
Ideally anyways. Realistically, we probably just argue on the internet about which talks were real (in this case generated by the person pictured in them).
Won't be perfect, but it would be a hurdle. Also, for things like audio and video if you know the location on the planet then there are certain artifacts that are hard to fake with mere AI. The way sound bounces off walls in a room or shared environmental noise that other devices in the area would detect, like a plane flying by.
If X is CNN, then half the population will not believe it. If X is Fox, the other half won't believe. Bottomline, the world will be truly living in virtual alternative universes and it doesn't even matter what truth is as long as everyone in that world believe that.
That literally accomplishes nothing. It would be a matter of time before someone just removes the light sensor (CCD? or something) and has a custom made encoder that can write the input data as though the device actually records it live.
Imagine two court cases. In one, there is a video signed with a key from a phone that shows no signs of compromise. In the other, there is a video with no signatures at all. Which is more trustworthy? It's a continuum, not a binary.
Edit:
And also, we can scale trust. There should be more webs-of-trust in the world. I should be able to tap my phone next to my buddies and it should create a link between us. We should have the concept of trust online when we need it.
Now someone wants to frame you, perhaps because you are a celebrity or a person with money to extort from. So they claim that they saw you murder this person.
Normally, this wouldn't hold any water and no jury would convict you, we are not in the medieval ages anymore. There would be no evidence of you around the crime scene, because of course, you weren't there.
Now imagine that they are able to produce audio recordings of a conversation you had with the victim, screaming at them and saying "you are gonna pay for this". And then they also happen to have video evidence of a smart phone camera that happened to capture you stabbing the victim.
Now tell me, if the jury sees all this and then it gets dismissed, because of "deepfake" claims or whatever, how will it affect the outcome of this trial?
If you are truly innocent, this might still work out alright, unless you are not white. But imagine there is even the SLIGHTEST connection to the real world. It doesn't have to be completely fake. Maybe you had some fight with that victim earlier, or there are witnesses who testify under oath that you had several heated arguments with them, etc.
Deepfakes can change the entire outcome of trials, by biasing the jury and proceedings against you. That's why any audio and video evidence essentially needs to be rejected without a very very thorough forensic analysis of its authenticity. And even then you would still not know for sure.
Also you should see the type of video evidence used in court. It’s grainy 5 FPS surveillance footage that doesn’t even show their face. Deepfakes are not necessary if you want to frame someone.
EDIT: just thought of something else, for videos and pictures increasing the resolution dramatically will make it harder to generate deep fakes, it might be interesting to see how much better cameras get and I’m sure that the amount of compute to fake a higher resolution image will be drastically higher. There are a lot of factors at play.
With deepfakes, in general I agree but it is a bit like computer security. It may be no different from reality but it may still have marks of the network that generated it. Ways to detect it may come out slowly, like computer bugs, with some entities having incentives to research them heavily and not release them.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7kzj8y/why-joe-bidens-vir...