Hacker News Reader

Comment by whoisjuan | Hacker News Reader

What do you mean? It’s not like a deepfake is a model that produces a new video from scratch in a completely random setting.

It needs a base video to be modified. They need a video of a person talking to do the deepfake.

View on HN

Exactly, so the point is that any relevant gestures must be coming from the timing used in an existing video, the current deepfake tech can manipulate lips and facial expressions, but it can't have the video lift three fingers at the proper time when "300" is being said.

So this is either an indication of a very elaborate deepfake which managed to surface an amazingly coincidental source video (which should be possible to find on her archives) or that it's not a deepfake but a real recording.

Or: it’s a deepfake where the attacker made a video and attached the victims face in post-processing.

Or: the base video is well chosen among the victim’s, the message is crafted as to not deviate a lot from the base, and the deep fake is used to have him say other things.

I think the issue is that there would be insufficient audio sources to generate new spoken language.

That is not an issue. You can generate new spoken language with not much more than a word.

Sincerely: I’d love to hear an example of that.

The reason for my skepticism: The state of the art language pronunciation from the best this planet has to offer still requires a full phoneme library recorded in studio conditions. A voice sample taken from a user’s instagram page doesn’t seem like the kind of source material that would be useful to make convincing speech.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com