[HN Gopher] Deepfake detection by human crowds, machines, and ma...
___________________________________________________________________
Deepfake detection by human crowds, machines, and machine-informed
crowds
Author : infodocket
Score : 19 points
Date : 2021-12-30 19:03 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pnas.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pnas.org)
| marcodiego wrote:
| I foresee a day when deepfake will be so easy and widespread that
| people (authorities) will acquire the habit of digitally signing
| what they say.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Well, they might digitally sign the things they say that they
| think reflect well on them. Why would they sign their gaffes?
| And then we're back where we started: someone shares a video of
| someone making a gaffe. There's no signature. Is it missing
| because it's fake, or because the speaker knew it was a gaffe?
| "Hey, I recorded you saying bad stuff in a donor meeting, will
| you sign it for me to prove it's not a deepfake?"
| champagnois wrote:
| That to me reads like a future where the right to be
| forgotten is finally restored.
|
| Anyone can then claim fake news about anything that wasnt
| enumerated on their resume.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| An unlimited "right to be forgotten" would serve criminals,
| conmen and crocked politicians perfect.
| fucyvuevyx wrote:
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Ignoring how little sense it makes to say spoken word would
| be... digitally signed???
|
| We've been at the point where a determined amateur could learn
| the skills to handcraft a false statement from a political
| figure.
|
| The content is not the issue, the trust of that content is.
|
| (In theory) the more authoritative the source, the more they'll
| require to treat a statement as real.
|
| Right now you could get a good impersonator to say something
| stupid and send it to one of those half-trying tabloids and
| they'd run it even if they knew it was fake...
|
| On the other hand a place like the NY Times might require more
| meat to the story, how did you get it, what was the chain of
| custody, etc.
| wswope wrote:
| The OP means cryptographically signed for proof of
| provenance, not bundled with a scanned copy of a signature.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Oh trust me I know... and it's _more_ ridiculous than
| bundling a scanned copy of a signature, and at best only as
| functional as that!
| wswope wrote:
| I'm not trying to @ you here, but... are you sure you
| really know?
|
| Cryptographic signatures offer gold-standard, definitive
| proof of authenticity/non-repudiation. "Trust of
| content", as you put it, is the problem they solve.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| "Don't want to @ me" please.
|
| I'm know what it is and in typical fashion you don't even
| understand the pinky toe of problem you're braying about.
|
| -
|
| Politicians will not use their private key to sign
| statements that hurt them even if they're real...
|
| So what on earth do you think a cryptological signature
| is solving in relation to deepfakes????
|
| Deepfake recording of politician saying something bad: "I
| neither signed nor said that."
|
| Actual recording politician saying something bad: "I
| neither signed not said that."
|
| Your scheme does literally nothing to solve the deepfake
| issue!
| wswope wrote:
| Why so aggressive?
|
| Including signatures as a matter of policy on all public
| communiques from a government agency would be useful for
| validating legitimacy, as anything deepfaked (i.e.
| without a signature) would immediately be called into
| question.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I suppose it depends on who they're addressing, but you could
| also imagine 'legitimate' fakes being issued by politicians and
| CEOs making announcements without the need to actually appear
| in front a crowd to disseminate them.
| kgin wrote:
| Super interesting. Short term this will be useful for detecting
| deepfakes. Long term this will be useful in training deepfake
| models to make undetectable deepfakes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-30 23:01 UTC)