Hyperrealistic Deepfaked Tom Cruise in a Coffeeshop(old.reddit.com) |
Hyperrealistic Deepfaked Tom Cruise in a Coffeeshop(old.reddit.com) |
And if it weren't such an obviously fake situation. Imagine it were more subtle, like Cruise out on a date in a high-end bar, coming onto a woman and overstepping boundaries, taken with a concealed cell phone.
Pretty soon the default will be everything is AI generated, even the most honest straightforward media will be AI edited/mediated.
It will be too convenient, consistent, flexible and efficient to record and edit most things with AI, not to
Before we asked “was that recorded in analog or digital?” Then we stopped asking.
Very few people did, and the consequences of that are incomparable. But I'm afraid your idea of commodity/ease of use will make much of the media AI mediated (at least). And like analog/digital, nobody will notice the difference.
I think people would unconsciously shift their mental bar to the point where the bad stuff makes them believe the good stuff is real.
that said this still has small lag and visual blur to feel uncanny
Do we have a photo of the original content ?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/deepfake-...
There's no obvious flaw (on the contrary, looks great), but there's just something off between how his shoulders, neck, and head move.
People are easily faked and, imho, it’s safest to assume everything is faked.
Digital media as strong evidence has been a novelty.
If anything the real thing to watch out for will be the echo of national digital ID. This would certainly solve the mild/moderate issues of deepfakes while (if done poorly) risking a serious upgrade to surveillance state/capitalism.
I'm guessing an uncomfortable transition period at least.
This does not seem to suffer from it from what I can see.
AI replication of voices, deepfakes, etc...
Asking that question seems relatively irrelevant to me, especially now that pretty much everything is at some point converted to digital anyway, if only for ease of distribution.
In that sense filming on film, for example, is only an aesthetic choice and a choice about the tools you want to use on set, anyway. Which is not to say that it doesn’t matter or doesn’t make a difference. But in cinemas they will still project the digitized version of that film. And people will still distribute digitized scans of their “analogue” photos online.
I mean, even “digital” cameras record decidedly analogue voltages from photosites, the difference is mostly about at which point in the chain you put the analogue digital converter.
But what difference does it make?
When digital media first became an option, it was often not as high quality.
And since digital was easier to manipulate, it was often viewed as less trustworthy as it got better & better.
We stopped worrying about the manipulation of digital when its quality advantages became so great that digital was pervasive.
At that point, all media was digital and easily editable, so digital was no longer a red flag.
The truth of digital media was considered based on its sources, confirmation from second sources, etc.
Digital no longer meant less trustworthy because everything was digital.
—
We are going through those same stages with AI media.
Easy to do many things with AI now, but the results are often awkward or slightly odd.
As it gets better we have greater trouble trusting what AI produces.
But soon everything will be so easily editable, enhanceable, etc. via AI, so basically everything will be.
And the veracity of content will rest again, on sources, etc.
AI itself won’t be a red flag of manipulation anymore, because everything will involve AI.