[HN Gopher] The road to realistic full-body deepfakes
___________________________________________________________________
The road to realistic full-body deepfakes
Author : Hard_Space
Score : 164 points
Date : 2022-09-22 14:15 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (metaphysic.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (metaphysic.ai)
| prox wrote:
| I have been wondering if using a human 3d model (which are quite
| real, but not 100% there yet) can be overwritten by better
| texturing -after the render- for complete immersion. So you use a
| motion tracked animation of a 3d model (or static for a picture)
| and then apply a way to make the last bit more convincing with
| better texture and lighting.
| echelon wrote:
| I have year old demos on https://storyteller.io.
|
| Some of the others in this space have great results :
| https://imgur.io/seBTPG8
|
| We've perfected voice replacement and I'll have more to show
| soon.
| prox wrote:
| Cool!
|
| The animation, is that a 3d actor with replaced visage by AI?
| Could you explain what you did there?
| echelon wrote:
| We're using mocap - both computer vision based and full
| body. We're also exploring text/audio -> animation, which
| will be good for quick animation workflows.
| alexose wrote:
| Maybe a dumb idea, but I wonder if there's a future in
| cryptographically signing videos in order to prove provenance.
| I'm imagining a G7 meeting, for instance, where each participant
| signs the video before it's released. Future propagandists, in
| theory, wouldn't be able to alter the video without invalidating
| the keys. And public figures couldn't just use the "altered
| video" excuse as a get-out-of-jail free card.
|
| It wouldn't solve any of the fundamental problems of trust, of
| course (namely, the issue of people cargo-culting a specific
| point of view and only trusting the people that reinforce it).
| But, it would at least allow people to opt out of sketchy
| "unsigned" videos showing up on their feeds.
|
| I guess it would also allow people to get out of embarrassing
| situations by refusing to sign. But, maybe that's a good thing?
| We already have too much "gotchya" stuff that doesn't advance the
| discourse.
| rpmisms wrote:
| Just hash the original video
| kyleplum wrote:
| As I mentioned in another comment - there is such an effort
| underway https://contentauthenticity.org/
|
| They don't intend to dictate who can authorize media, only
| provide a verification mechanism that the media was sourced
| from the place it claims to have been sourced from and is
| unaltered.
|
| I think of it as https but for media content.
| tomrod wrote:
| Had this idea a few years ago. Great to see it getting legs.
| Frost1x wrote:
| Ditto, although I was thinking of a slightly different
| approach. I didn't think anyone was actively doing anything
| but I love when I have ideas that seem independent and they
| magically become 'realized' from my ignorance because
| someone else did it already.
| alexose wrote:
| Woah! I had no idea something like this would be so far
| along.
|
| It seems like they're on the right track. I think the key is
| to keep scope creep to a minimum. As soon as someone tries to
| add DRM, for instance, the whole effort will go up in flames.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I hear this ethical concern raised a lot, usually as some
| variation of AI being used to distribute "fake news."
|
| The inverse is equally problematic and harder to solve: those
| in power discrediting real photos/videos/phone-calls as "deep
| fakes."
|
| Not releasing AI models doesn't stop this. The technology being
| possible is sufficient for its use in discrediting evidence.
|
| Signing real footage isn't sufficient. You can get G7 to sign
| an official conference recording, but could you get someone to
| sign the recording of them taking a bribe?
|
| Generating deep fakes that hold up to intense scrutiny doesn't
| appear to be technically feasible with anything available to
| the public today. But that isn't necessary to discredit real
| footage as a deep fake. It being feasible that nation state
| level funding could have secretly developed this tech is
| sufficient. It seems we are quickly approaching that point, if
| not already past it.
| rlpb wrote:
| I imagine realtime cryptographic timestamping services combined
| with multiple videos of the same event taken from various
| perspectives, by multiple witnesses connected to viewers by a
| web of trust, with good discoverability of the different
| authenticated viewpoints.
|
| Combining all of those things would make it impractically
| difficult to fake a scene without knowing what you want to fake
| in advance as well as developing credible witness reputations
| even further in advance.
|
| For example, imagine a car accident caught by dashcams. You'd
| not only have your own dashcam footage certified to have been
| produced no later than the event by a timestamping service, but
| also corroborating footage from all other nearby traffic also
| certified in the same way but by other, competing services.
|
| It'd be the future equivalent of having many independent
| witnesses to some event.
|
| Maybe it won't be necessary to go quite as far, but I think it
| would be possible for recordings to remain credible in this
| way, should the need arise.
| superkuh wrote:
| None of the videos on this page really look convincing. In terms
| of generating static photos existing "photoshops" people have
| been making for 25 years are far better. I don't see the need to
| clutch pearls and call for new laws to put people in prison quite
| yet.
|
| But even the failures at temporal coherence have their own
| aesthetic appeal. Like all of this stuff has been it's very
| "dreamy" the way the clothing subtly shifts forms.
|
| Beyond the coolness I'm glad that individual people are getting
| access to digital manipulation capabilities that have only before
| been available to corporations, institutions, and government
| before.
| staticassertion wrote:
| I imagine that phoshopping videos at this quality or higher is
| going to take way longer and be a much more specialized skill.
| beders wrote:
| Now everyone can build their own Star Wars sequel movies! I was
| wondering about that after the disaster that was TROS.
|
| I didn't think it would be possible to do in this decade, but we
| seem to be making progress fast now. Very impressive to see. (and
| scary)
| runeks wrote:
| How about first making deepfake faces actually believable?
|
| Seems like every AI project does something halfheartedly, ponders
| _what the world will be like_ once it's perfected, and then
| starts the next project long before the first project is actually
| useful for anything but meme videos.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Even AIs which have existed for years and been "perfected" are
| very noticeably not-human. Though they do look believable from
| far away, up close they are still in the uncanny valley.
|
| For instance Siri and Google Voice: they are clearly
| _understandable_ but they sound noticeably different than real
| people.
|
| Or Stable Diffusion which will supposedly put real artists out
| of business. It is definitely viable for stock photos, but I
| can usually tell when an image was made by Stable Diffusion
| (artifacts, incomplete objects, excessive patterns).
|
| thispersondoesnotexist.com faces can also be spotted, though
| only if I look closely. If they are a profile pic I would
| probably gloss over them.
|
| In fact, I bet you can make an ML model which very accurately
| detects whether something was made by another ML model.
| Actually that's a good area of research, because then you can
| make a deepfake model which tries to evade this model and it
| may get even more realistic outputs...
|
| Ultimately I think we will see a lot more AI before we start
| seeing truly indistinguishable AI. It's still close enough that
| the ethical concerns are real, as people who don't really know
| AI can be fooled. But I predict it will take at least a while
| before a consensus of trained "AI experts" can't agree on
| authenticity.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| That's what goes to media. "Engineers scrap last little
| artifacts off deep-fake still images" just doesn't make for
| "good" headlines.
|
| Somewhere, someone is working hard to perfect these. In this
| particular case probably under NDA... le sigh
| BudaDude wrote:
| I didn't know me and AI had so much in common.
| walls wrote:
| They're believable enough for video calls:
| https://www.dw.com/en/vitali-klitschko-fake-tricks-berlin-ma...
| kleiba wrote:
| As far as I remember those calls were actually not made with
| deep fake tech, but by reusing video material from a previous
| call, skillfully edited to be believable enough.
| kabes wrote:
| The company behind this post recently got into america got
| talent finals with a deepfake act. It looked pretty convincing
| to me. Especially compared to state if the art of just 2-3
| years ago.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| >It looked pretty convincing to me. Especially compared to
| state if the art of just 2-3 years ago.
|
| This has been the case for decades now. Much more realistic
| than x isn't a good enough metric. It needs to be
| indistinguishable from the real thing.
|
| I'm old enough to remember this being called photo realistic:
| https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-
| content/uplo...
|
| And it was, compared to everything that had come before. Now
| ... not so much.
| kabes wrote:
| https://youtu.be/TVezHTlPMw8
|
| This is the act I meant. Judge for yourself, but I believe
| we're close to bridging the uncanny valley
| jcims wrote:
| I think the problem we have with deepfake believability today
| it just takes one weak link to spoil it. It turns out that
| we're somehow still pretty bad at believable audio and not even
| close with deepfaked 'presence' in the form of persona of
| motion. But if you pair a believable impersonation with
| something even remotely state of the art in the visual, you end
| up with something pretty compelling:
|
| https://www.tiktok.com/@deeptomcruise
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjI-JaRWG7s
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWrhRBb-1Ig
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhUhypV27w (Not the greatest
| visually but funny nonetheless, esp the end)
| overthemoon wrote:
| That the two splashy examples are hot people in their underwear
| is pretty telling for what one major use of this will be. Makes
| me feel weird. I find takes on deepfakes fraying shared
| epistemology alarmist, people will continue to believe whatever
| they want to believe and falsifying evidence is still a crime,
| but the ability to conjure moving images of whatever human body
| you want without that person's permission feels bad. DALL-E
| adding protections against sexual or violent imagery is a short
| term solution, at best, IMO. Maybe I'm being alarmist, too.
| Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your
| friend's photo to take their clothes off.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| > Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your
| friend's photo to take their clothes off.
|
| Unless an existing reference image exists - whatever the switch
| does will be a guess. Many motivated folks already do this with
| photoshop; it's all over 4chan and similar message boards
| (request threads) and has been that way for at least a decade.
|
| This is already the reality for celebrities with photoshop -
| their likeness is returned unclothed in image search.
|
| That's not their body
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| That's not really comparable though, as it's basically
| composite work. The AI has the ability to infer then to
| "imagine" with photorealistic results.
|
| There would be small details kept intact between the source
| image and the output that would make it feel much more
| personal than even the best manual fakes of today.
| r3trohack3r wrote:
| I'm not sure I'm convinced.
|
| There is a lot of variation in details between human bodies
| that are covered by clothing.
|
| You can infer some things, like skin tone and hair color,
| from other parts of the exposed body with pretty decent
| accuracy. You can infer general body shape from how the
| clothes fit. But for things like size, shape, color, hair,
| birth marks, moles, surgical modifications, etc. of various
| concealed body parts? All those vary wildly from person to
| person. Unless you have a reference image that you can use
| to answer those questions - I can't imagine that you will
| be able to infer those. If you can't infer those, you
| aren't getting the real body of the person you are trying
| to undress. You're getting a dream of what that person
| might look like if they were to remove their clothes - a
| dream that is not accurate.
|
| Not to discredit what you are saying: those dream images
| are definitely going to cause an entire generation of
| discomfort. But the cat is out of the bag and has been for
| some time. Artists were already capable of creating images
| like this without consent - but it required more talent
| than most humans poses to get that onto paper. Photoshop
| made it possible too. AI is making it even easier.
|
| Society is weird about nudity. To be fair, I am too. We
| have all of these constructs built around the human body
| and concealing it that many of us have bought into.
|
| At it's core, I think the fear of this tech and nudity is
| that it will be used to "steal dignity" from folks. The
| question is: can you steal dignity from someone with pencil
| and paper? Is a photorealistic sketch of your friend
| unclothed sufficient for them to have lost their dignity?
| What about photoshop? How about passing your photorealistic
| sketch through an AI to make it even more photorealistic?
| At what point have you robbed someone of dignity? Robbing
| someone of dignity is a social construct, in some ways this
| form of dignity stealing is something we _allow_ people to
| do to one another by buying into that construct. I do feel
| like the narrative we should be pushing is "that isn't my
| body." If we invest in breaking the construct, my hope is
| that we can remove the power this holds over people.
| russdill wrote:
| We all have the ability to infer and then "imagine" the
| results.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| But we don't all have the ability to render our
| imaginations as photorealistic jpegs
| autoexec wrote:
| What harm would it cause if we did? If I could imagine
| you naked and produce a JPG of my fantasy it would still
| only be fantasy. It doesn't matter if I'm making JPGs,
| cutting your head out of photos and gluing them to
| catalogue models, or if I've got a supercomputer making
| deepfakes. It's still just fantasy... speculative
| fiction.
| xwdv wrote:
| That's what you find alarming? Some fake photos of people's
| clothes coming off? You can already take a bikini photo of
| someone and make a plausible estimate of their naked body.
|
| What's incredibly alarming is how this tech will eventually be
| twisted with evil to create child pornography at scale, leading
| to "conflict-free" porn generated on the fly that pedophiles
| (aka _minor-attracted person_ for the politically correct here)
| will use to fuel arguments for acceptance of their sick habits.
| overthemoon wrote:
| I feel like that was implied by my comment, but yes, believe
| it or not, I do find that also alarming.
| xwdv wrote:
| I think you should have been more clear: the most alarming
| use case of this tech would be some sick pedo taking
| pictures of your child then using that source imagery to
| generate fake porn and pleasuring himself all over it.
|
| This should be very illegal.
| maxbond wrote:
| How about you express your views as an addition to the
| conversation instead of as a criticism for other people
| not expressing the particular variety of concern that you
| have...?
| SanderNL wrote:
| (Warning: I'm having a very hard time determining if you
| are trolling or are for real..)
|
| That's not the most alarming use case of this tech. By
| far. (IMHO)
|
| Also, I find this reasoning very off-putting. Putting
| child porn into a discussion kills it. All participants
| are (mostly) willing and basically required to agree and
| "let's not talk about this further".
|
| The fundamental technology that underpins these
| achievements is more than capable of destroying
| civilization if things start to go south - which I
| believe they will, sooner or later. I find that to be
| more worthy of discussion than moral jousting about
| things people do in their private lives that I will -
| hopefully - never know about.
|
| Let's all use our imagination and see where these kinds
| of models, both diffusion and transformers can take us.
| Sure they can generate plausible visual information, but
| that's not all they can do. Some days ago someone posted
| about ACT-1, a transformer for actions. People can and
| will hook up these things in all sorts of complicated
| pipelines and boy, generating some insensitive imagery is
| way, way down on the list of things to worry about.
| triyambakam wrote:
| So you've thoroughly defended against the point about
| talking about porn, but you give no examples of you say
| we should "truly worry about". Can you at least explain
| further? Sounds too hand wavy
| SanderNL wrote:
| Good point. I _am_ being handwavey, sorry about that.
|
| First, I see "AGI" as a real problem we'll have to face
| at some point. I believe we will be too late by the time
| we recognize it as a problem, so let's ignore that
| "threat" for now.
|
| The more pressing problem IMO is that, to use technical
| terms, a _shitload_ of people will have to face the
| reality that a software system is outperforming them on
| just about anything they are capable of doing
| professionally. I believe this will happen sooner than
| later and I am totally not seeing society being ready for
| that. Already I am seeing these models outperforming me -
| and my collegues - on quite a few important axes, which
| worries me and also the fact they almost universally
| dismiss it because it 's not "perfect". I know it's hot
| these days to either under- or overestimate AI, but I do
| feel we have crossed a certain line. I don't see this
| genie going back into its bottle.
|
| Perhaps I'm still handwavey. I guess I am a handwavey
| person and I'm sorry about that, but when I see GPT3
| finishing texts with such grace I can't help but see a
| transformer also being capable of finishing "motor
| movements" or something else entirely like "chemical
| compounds", "electrical schematics" or even "legal
| judgements". I just found out about computational law
| BTW, might interest someone. Even just the "common sense"
| aspect of GPT3 is (IMO) amazing. Stuff like: we make eye
| contact during conversation, but we don't when driving.
| Why not? But also stuff like detecting in which room of
| the house we are based on which objects we see. That sort
| of stuff is amazing and it's a very general model too.
| Not trained on anything specific.
|
| I guess the core of what I'm saying is that "predicting
| the next token" and getting it right often enough is
| frightenly close to what makes a large percentage of the
| human populace productive in a capitalist sense. I know
| I'm not connecting a lot of dots here, but I clearly lack
| the space, time and perhaps more importantly, the
| intelligence to actually do that. I fear I might be a
| handwavey individual - in fact easily replaced by GPT#.
| Do you now see why am I so worried? :)
| triyambakam wrote:
| Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it. And it makes
| sense what you've shared.
| jefftk wrote:
| I agree it's extremely distasteful, but why should it be
| illegal? Who is being harmed?
| triyambakam wrote:
| What if those photos then were shared? Someone might
| accuse the parents
| mikotodomo wrote:
| londons_explore wrote:
| > Perhaps it won't be as easy as toggling a switch next to your
| friend's photo to take their clothes off.
|
| Thats totally a browser extension next year... Right click,
| remove clothes...
|
| When you think about it, ethically it's in the same ballpark as
| right click, copy, something you probably also be doing without
| asking the subject of the image.
| [deleted]
| devenson wrote:
| Reminds me of the Michael Chrichton movie named "Looker"
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| It's quite frightening to imagine what this could do when
| weaponised against women, used for harassment and the creation of
| nonconsensual pornography based on people's likeness. I wonder if
| this is one of the first things we'll start seeing legislation
| relating to.
|
| It's also concerning to imagine the social impact this could have
| on young boys as well, in a climate where pornography addiction
| issues become more visible each year.
| welshwelsh wrote:
| I'm more concerned about censorship. China justifies their mass
| internet censorship with pornography bans, which have high
| public support. Will deepfakes push the US over the edge,
| bringing the free Internet to an end?
|
| I'm not concerned at all about pornography addiction, I don't
| think that's real. On the contrary, pornography promotes
| autonomy and independence by making people less dependent on
| others for sexual stimulation. It's a massive social good, and
| unrestricted pornography is the sign of a modern society.
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| I don't think it's so simple and none of this is black and
| white. Stigma around pornography is bad because it
| unnecessarily restricts what adults may freely do with their
| bodies, but not all pornography is produced with full and
| uncoerced consent. Making an excuse to ban free speech by
| banning unharmful pornography is bad, but unrestrictedly
| producing fake porn of someone without their consent is also
| bad.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I'm surprised that you so quickly equate the free internet
| with the internet we have today. We already have widespread
| suppression of certain types of pornography, most notably
| that involving children.
|
| The internet we have today is not free. The society we have
| is not a wholly free one but we rightfully make trade-offs to
| protect people.
|
| We know that today there is already a huge issue of
| nonconsensual pornography, revenge porn etc. Why the line of
| what is "free" drawn at protecting these groups, why do we
| tolerate open abuse against women but not against children? I
| wonder if our outlook on women's safety as a society is
| really as forward thinking as we would hope when we look
| around the world today.
|
| > "unrestricted pornography" is the sign of a modern society.
|
| Is it though? In another world you could say the same thing
| about drugs. Some people in America today might say it about
| gun freedoms.
|
| I don't know. I think there are lines to be drawn and I think
| we can be open to discussing those without falling
| immediately into hysterics about state overreach.
| api wrote:
| Banning porn in the US is a huge issue in the national
| conservative camp, at least if you listen to a little bit of
| their discourse around long term goals. If that camp comes to
| power expect restrictions in the US which would probably
| require enormous scale Internet clampdowns.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Banning pornography is the most extreme view. The question
| is should there be regulations to ensure consent from those
| whose likenesses are involved?
| autoexec wrote:
| Commercially, I'd agree someone should have compensation
| for use of their likenesses, but what people choose to
| draw, imagine, photoshop, or deepfake for non-commercial
| use is their business and any state that regulates that
| would be a dystopian nightmare.
| wcoenen wrote:
| What's going on with the scrolling behavior of this page? I'm
| getting a very annoying "scrolling with inertia" behavior in
| Chrome for desktop.
| macrolime wrote:
| I don't think you need videos with extreme levels of annotations
| as this article suggests.
|
| If a model is already trained on lots of images and captions, it
| would probably be possible to just feed it tons of whatever video
| and let it figure out the rest itself.
| slfnflctd wrote:
| Funny thing, as a clueless little kid in the 80s whose mind was
| shaped by popular fiction, I often suspected this kind of thing
| already existed back then. One of my 'gotcha' questions for
| adults was, "I've only ever seen him on TV, so how do I know
| Ronald Reagan is even real?"
|
| Over 30 years later, while I would've never anticipated
| smartphones... I really thought impersonation technology through
| video & audio editing (not dependent upon look-alike actors)
| would've been here sooner. Another example of wildly
| underestimating the complexity of what might seem like a simple
| problem.
| whatshisface wrote:
| In a sense, Ronald Regan was not real. All of his speeches were
| written by someone else, and he relied heavily on advisors. He
| was a figurehead for his administration to a greater extent
| than most presidents before and after. He was one of the few
| presidents that may have actually been innocent of the bad
| stuff that went on in the white house during his presidency
| (Iran-Contra), because he never showed any indication of really
| understanding it the way Nixon understood Watergate or LBJ
| understood Vietnam.
| munk-a wrote:
| Can I briefly and humorously boil your statement above down
| to "Ronald Reagen was probably innocent by way of sheer
| ignorance"?
| advantager wrote:
| Ignorantia juris non excusat
| squarefoot wrote:
| > "I've only ever seen him on TV, so how do I know Ronald
| Reagan is even real?"
|
| This made me wondering how many among the newer generations
| social media addicts would think along the lines of "I've only
| ever seen him in person, so how do I know he is real?".
| NavinF wrote:
| Am I on HN or /r/oldpeoplefacebook?
| [deleted]
| deejaaymac wrote:
| made me LOL
| [deleted]
| robot9000 wrote:
| Remove the "as a kid" part and you're now a conspiracy
| theorist, or one of _those_ people.
| skilled wrote:
| Hmm, this does make me wonder what kind of an effect will
| deepfakes have on people's general perception of the world?
|
| I might be far fetching here, but wouldn't this lead to people
| being more mindful of what they watch and interact with? I think
| all that it will take is a few "state of the art" deepfakes to
| cause a ruckus and the domino effect should do the rest.
|
| Anyone in the field spent time thinking on this or has had
| similar notions?
| drc500free wrote:
| The ability to use this to plausibly deny any real evidence is
| more chilling than the fake evidence that could be created.
| showerst wrote:
| Photoshop has been common knowledge for years, and people still
| buy some very dumb edits.
|
| I imagine that deepfakes will follow a similar path to edited
| photos -- lots of deception, followed by trustworthy sources
| gaining a little more cachet, but with many people still
| getting fleeced. Skepticism will ramp up in direct relation to
| youth, wealth, and tech-savvy.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Even simple video fakes such as slowing down a politicians
| speech to make them look slow or indecisive has gone viral.
| It doesn't take state of the art to lie to those who prefer
| their own echo chamber.
| autoexec wrote:
| Plenty of people have mislead others online with nothing
| but text! Ultimately we're going to have to just accept the
| fact that you can't believe everything you see on the
| internet.
| kadoban wrote:
| Video is more effective than text, because people think
| they've seen whatever event and formed their own
| conclusions. Those are much stronger than just being told
| what happened.
| autoexec wrote:
| I've seen it argued that text is worse because it forces
| people to read the words with their own inner voice.
| Somewhere in this discussion is a guy who linked to
| studies saying you are incapable of reading anything
| without believing it. (Do you believe me?)
|
| Text, photoshop, special effects, deepfakes they're all
| just tools for spreading ideas, but we've been dealing
| (to some degree of success) with folks telling lies for
| as long as we've had language. I just can't see this
| fundamentally changing anything except the level of
| skepticism we give to video which (considering what
| hollywood has been capable of for some time) we should
| have been developing already.
| jsty wrote:
| If you have access to BBC iPlayer, "The Capture" is a really
| good fictional programme / drama exploring the possible
| implications re. justice and politics
| wingspar wrote:
| In the US, it's on Peacock. Enjoyed it very much. I think we
| had watched it on PBS.
|
| It's a surveillance thriller.
| aimor wrote:
| We (people) already accept the lies we perceive. I think we
| choose to accept these fantasies because they're often outside
| our direct influence and when something is distant from us we
| have the luxury of turning it into entertainment. I think of
| beauty in media, every video we see today is processed to make
| people look pretty. Most play along with the fantasy: admire
| old celebrities for not aging, complement friends for clear
| skin. But when a friend says, "I feel so ugly" we move closer
| to reality and acknowledge the makeup, beauty filters, etc. The
| same effect happens in politics, news, business, technology:
| people indulge in fantasy at their convenience.
|
| I don't think people will be more mindful of what they watch
| and believe, I think the opposite will happen: an attraction to
| fake content. People will embrace the fantasy and share
| deepfakes at a scale so large governments will be running
| campaigns to alert the public that such-and-such video is fake,
| possibly attempting to regulate how content shared online must
| be labeled.
|
| That said I still believe when these lies are closer to us,
| enough for us to care either as professionals or friends and
| family, that we will be more discerning about reality.
| Swizec wrote:
| As Abe Lincoln always said: Don't believe everything you read
| on the internet.
|
| But we do.
|
| There's research. Even if you read something that you know is
| wrong _you still believe it_. Especially when distracted or not
| taking the time to analyze. As we rarely do.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2013/01/24/study-finds-that-we-still-...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-believe-everything-y...
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8366418/
| autoexec wrote:
| > Even if you read something that you know is wrong you still
| believe it.
|
| That seems like bullshit to me. I read your words (you even
| posted links!) so how come I don't just instantly believe
| you? If it were true, wouldn't it make all fiction inherently
| dangerous?
|
| Let's see how it holds up in real life... here's a lie: "My
| uncle works at Nintendo and he told me that Mario (Jumpman at
| the time) was originally intended to only have one testicle,
| but the NES (famicom) didn't have powerful enough graphics to
| show that so they scraped that part of his official character
| design and have left the number of testicles unspecified ever
| since."
|
| Somewhere, secretly deep inside you, do you believe that now?
|
| Nah. I think we don't have to worry about people believing
| everything just because they read it. Reading things can put
| ideas into your head (have you ever even considered Mario's
| testicles before today?) but at this point we're straining
| the hell out of "belief" and going into philosophical
| arguments. In real life though, we are capable as a species
| of separating fact from fiction some of the time.
| tsol wrote:
| I have suspected similarly. Skepticism and critical thinking
| are useful devices, but they can't always tell a truth from a
| lie. And even if they could-- humans aren't totally rational
| beings. Sometimes we believe lies because we want it to be
| true or because everyone around us does. Hell sometimes
| people believe things just to win an argument
| bsenftner wrote:
| Back in '02-'04 I was a former games/graphics programmer
| working as a digital artist in feature film VFX. One area I
| specialized in was stunt double actor replacements. Working on
| Disney's "Ice Princess" I fixed a stunt double replacement shot
| and realized a method of making the entire process generic, at
| feature film quality.
|
| By '06 I had an MBA with a Masters Thesis on the creation of a
| new Advertising format where the viewer, their family and
| friends are inserted into brand advertising for online
| advertising. By '08 I had global patents and an operating
| demonstration VFX pipeline specific for actor replacements at
| scale. However, it was the financial crisis of '08 and nobody
| in the general public had ever conceived of automated actor
| replacements. This was 5-7 years before the term deep fake
| became known. VCs simply disbelieved the technology was
| possible, even when demonstrated before their eyes.
|
| Going the angel investor route, 3 different times I formed an
| investor pool only to have at some point them realize what the
| technology could do with pornography, and then the investors
| insist the company pursue porn. However, we had Academy Award
| winning people in the company, why would they do porn? We
| refused and that was the end of those investors. With an agency
| for full motion video actor replacement advertising not getting
| financing, the award winning VFX people left and the company
| pivoted to the games industry - making realistic 3D avatars of
| game players. That effort was fully built out by '10, but the
| global patents were expensive to maintain and the games
| industry producers and studios I met simply wanted the service
| for free. Struggled for a few years. We closed, sold the
| patents, and I went into facial recognition.
|
| https://patents.justia.com/inventor/blake-senftner
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lELORWgaudU
|
| I was bitter about this all for a long time.
| e40 wrote:
| I think it will make it far easier to manipulate dumb people.
| The same 30% (?) of the people who think the last US
| Presidential election was stolen. These people will be easier
| to whip into a frenzy. I worry this will increase the
| likelihood of violence, above what is already happening.
| tryauuum wrote:
| (as a non-american) I don't think it was stolen, but the
| whole "vote via mail" thing made me really suspicious
| fknorangesite wrote:
| > the whole "vote via mail" thing made me really suspicious
|
| Why? Mail-in voting is hardly unique to the US; what made
| you suspicious?
| tryauuum wrote:
| quite unique for my country (Russia). Though they
| recently started to do some remote "blockchain-based"
| voting in Moscow, which is widely considered to be a
| fraud
| foobiekr wrote:
| I mean.. most things blockchain are.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| It really is nothing to be suspicious about. Full vote by
| mail had already been the norm in some US states for years,
| and most states allowed for it in specific circumstances.
| The infrastructure, laws, etc., were already there, they
| just needed to be expanded. Expanding it has always been in
| the national conversation, it has just been a matter of
| figuring it out and priority.
|
| So when a global pandemic occurs and we're trying
| everything we can to isolate and socially distance, that
| priority changes real quick. People get talking and
| problems get solved.
|
| Of course, sore losers will complain about anything to
| justify their loss, and this "new thing" was a prime
| scapegoat. It was also well known ahead of time that the
| mail in votes would be largely Democratic (because COVID
| was VERY politicized and democrats were more likely to
| follow quarantine guidance and therefore vote by mail). So
| when the votes came in, they pointed to that imbalance and
| called it "fraud".
|
| Besides all that, there's no reason to be more suspicious
| of mail-in ballots than in-person ones. In-person, you mark
| a paper ballot and then put it in a stack... which then
| gets mailed somewhere else. If someone is going to be
| changing mail-in ballots, then they're already in a
| position to be changing regular ones as well (and every
| election security professional will tell you that paper
| ballots are more secure than electronic ones).
| tryauuum wrote:
| It's true that the one who counts the votes matters and
| this doesn't change with mail voting / in-person voting
|
| The one advantage of physical voting I can think of is
| the ability to just be close to voting station on voting
| day, counting people who go in there, asking people (who
| are willing to share) for whom did they vote. This allows
| to independently check if fraud exists.
| gcanyon wrote:
| Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate. Given the level of
| fraud thus far demonstrated (minimal) there is zero
| likelihood of "checking" by exit polls.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| As opposed to the dumb people who spent 4 years claiming the
| last-but-one presidential election was stolen, you mean?
| capitalsigma wrote:
| I never heard that claim. Only "the electoral college is a
| bad system" or "voters were influenced by Russian
| propaganda." Never "votes were impacted by direct fraud."
| notdonspaulding wrote:
| In terms of claiming the results of the election is
| illegitimate, "voters were influenced by Russian
| propaganda" instead of "votes were impacted by direct
| fraud" seems like a distinction without a difference to
| me.
|
| https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-
| maintains-2016-electi...
|
| In 2020, Hillary Clinton was still casting aspersions
| regarding the outcome of the 2016 election, sowing
| discontent about the electoral college, preparing
| Democrat voters to ignore the results until Joe Biden was
| declared the winner.
|
| Portraying this game as if it's only being played by one
| team does not help restore any trust in the federal
| election process.
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| There were fraud claims on the fringe just after the 2016
| election. The evidence was sparse. It didn't take long
| for even those pretty angry about the election to realize
| fraud probably didn't happen, and if it did it was at too
| small a scale to meaningfully affect the results.
|
| Unfortunately in 2020 the fringe became the GOP
| mainstream, treating equally soft claims as fact.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| No, it wasn't "on the fringe". Note that this poll was
| taken in 2020, a full four years later.
|
| "Seventy-two percent (72%) of Democrats believe it's
| likely the 2016 election outcome was changed by Russian
| interference, but that opinion is shared by only 30% of
| Republicans and 39% of voters not affiliated with either
| major party."
|
| https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/
| gen...
| sjsdaiuasgdia wrote:
| By fraud I mean actual voter fraud. As in, effort was
| made to cause invalid votes to be counted or valid votes
| to not be counted.
|
| Russia absolutely did and continues to push propaganda
| into elections in the USA and elsewhere. That's not
| really in dispute at this point so I'm not surprised it
| polls that high.
|
| Got a poll that shows similar numbers for fraud? I would
| be genuinely surprised to see that.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| There were many claims that voters were illegitimately
| purged from the rolls, which is pretty much the
| equivalent.
|
| I should actually note here that I didn't vote for Trump,
| either time, nor did I vote for Clinton or Biden.
|
| I just hate hypocrisy.
| [deleted]
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Then you weren't listening. People were screaming "Russia
| stole the election" from Day 1, not "just voters were
| influenced by Russian propaganda". You're spinning.
| bdowling wrote:
| In 2019, Hillary Clinton, in a CBS News interview, called
| Trump "illegitimate", claimed that Trump "stole" the
| election, and accused him of voter manipulation,
| including "hacking".
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-
| trum...
| gcanyon wrote:
| I don't think she means what you think she means by
| "hacking." I think she means this:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-
| election-...
| thedorkknight wrote:
| I live in a liberal city and didn't hear this from anyone.
| The was initially a decent bit of "not my president"
| attitude, but just in a philosophical sense, and even that
| petered out pretty fast.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Hillary Clinton herself claimed that the election was
| stolen and that Trump was an "illegitimate President".
|
| But she doesn't count as "anyone", I guess?
| e40 wrote:
| Did you hear that from Fox News? Because I never heard it
| once.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| Then you weren't listening. Note the quote above from
| _Hillary Clinton herself_.
| costigan wrote:
| Stolen is a vague word. If there's evidence she believes
| there was sufficient fraud to have changed the result, I
| would be interested. If she was referring to the stolen
| Podesta emails and Comey's statement right before the
| election, then those things happened. You may think those
| things didn't matter, but it's no surprise she does. And
| then there's the whole storming the capital thing she
| didn't do.
| gcanyon wrote:
| I think Clinton was referring to this:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-
| election-...
|
| In other words: not saying that there was actual fraud
| sufficient to change the election, not saying the
| election was "stolen" in the sense people seem to be
| saying here.
| jacobolus wrote:
| The last-but-one presidential election was affected by
| various states illegally throwing large numbers of legal
| voters off their voter rolls, but it's impossible to say
| whether it would have made enough difference to alter the
| outcome, and there's no convincing evidence votes were
| directly changed. (It would be a good thing to have a
| verifiable paper trail for every election; in some parts of
| the USA it is impossible to effectively investigate any
| alleged shenanigans.)
|
| The bigger problem in that election was Russian-
| intelligence-stolen (and possibly tampered with) documents
| being released to the press in the lead up to the election
| in coordination with the Trump campaign (with the FBI
| keeping its investigation of that secret), and then the FBI
| director making an unprecedented and (we found out only
| afterward) unsupportable statement attacking Clinton
| immediately before the election, after being pressured into
| it by a handful rogue FBI agents who were friends of
| Trump's campaign threatening insubordination.
|
| And perhaps the biggest problem of all, an entirely too
| credulous mainstream media who didn't put those
| developments in context, leaving voters to draw mistaken
| inferences, and giving oodles of free airtime to Trump's
| rallies without making any effort to dispute outright lying
| in real time.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I can't wait to just generate pornography on the fly while
| wearing a body monitor so that it can fine tune female body
| proportions to my exact specifications.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Does that sound healthy? Personally or socially? I'd worry
| about how that would affect my view of the real women around
| me and, in turn, my behaviors towards others.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Definitely not. It actually scares me what future we are
| heading towards. Supernormal stimulus. Better than a human
| partner could ever be. Super addicting in a primordial way.
| autoexec wrote:
| I'm guessing that most people will have very little trouble
| separating reality from fantasy.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Why yes.
|
| Let me quote myself from a discussion I was having this morning
| with a friend who is a tenured professor of philosophy working
| on AI (as an ethics specialist his work is in oversight),
|
| we were discussing the work shared on HN this week showing a
| proof-of-concept of Stable Diffusion as better at image
| "compression" than existing webstandards.
|
| I was very provoked by commentary here about the high "quality"
| images produced, it was clear that they could in theory contain
| arbitrary levels of detail--but detail that was confabulated,
| not encoded in any sense except diffusely in the model training
| set.
|
| "I'm definitely inclined to push hard on the confabulation vs
| compression distinction, and by extension the ramifications.
|
| I see there a very meaningful qualitative distinction [between
| state of the art "compression" techniques, and confabulation by
| ML] and, an instrumental consequence which has a long shadow.
|
| The thing I am focused on being, whether or not the fact that a
| media object is lossy or not can be determined, even under even
| forensic scrutiny.
|
| There was a story I saw this week about the arms race in
| detection of 'deep fake' reproduction of voice... which now
| requires some pretty sophisticated models itself. Naturally I
| think this is an arms race in which the cost of detection is
| going to rapidly become infeasible except to the NSA. And maybe
| ultimately, infeasible full stop.
|
| So yeah, I think we're at a phase change already, which
| absolutely has been approaching, back to Soviet photo
| retouching and before, forgery and spycraft since forever... so
| many examples e.g. the story that went around a couple years
| ago about historians being up in arms about the fad for
| "restoring" and upscaling antique film and photographs, the
| issue of concern being that so much of that kind of restoration
| is confabulation and the presumptive dangers of mistaking
| compelling restoration for truth in some critical detail. Which
| at the time mostly seemed a concern for people who use the word
| hermeneutics unironically...
|
| ...but we now reach a critical inflection point where society
| as a whole integrates the notion that no media object no matter
| "convincing" can be trusted,
|
| and the consequent really hard problems about how we find
| consensus, and how we defend ourselves against bad actors who
| actively seek their Orbis Tertius Christofascist kingdom of
| rewritten history and alternative facts.
|
| The derisive "fake news" married to indetectably confabulated
| media is a really potent admixture!"
| gcanyon wrote:
| Once you accept lossy compression, it becomes a question of
| what level and type of "lossy" you're willing to accept, and
| how clever the "compression" algorithm can be.
|
| If I want to compress the movie Thunderball -- a sufficiently
| clever "compression" algorithm could start with the synopsis
| at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderball_(film) add in
| some images of Sean Connery, and generate the film.
| That's...maybe a 100K to 1 compression ratio?
|
| If the algorithm itself understands "Sean Connery" then you
| could (theoretically) literally feed in the text description
| and achieve a reasonable result. I've seen Thunderball, but
| it was years ago and I don't remember the plot (boats?). I'd
| know the result was different, but I likely wouldn't be able
| to point to anything specific.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > wouldn't this lead to people being more mindful of what they
| watch and interact with?
|
| No. We have already run the case study where people on Reddit,
| Twitter, and other social media will seethe at mere screenshots
| of headlines and captions under a picture with zero need for
| verification.
|
| Here on HN we will pile into the comments to react to the title
| without even clicking the link to read it ourselves.
|
| Deepfakes feel like a drop in the bucket. What does it matter
| that you can deepfake a president when people will simply
| believe a claim about the president than spreads around social
| media? I don't see it.
| wussboy wrote:
| I think we will get to a point where trust will only come from
| face-to-face physical meetings. We won't be able to believe in
| Zoom calls, phone calls, nothing except face-to-face.
|
| Just like it was for millions of years before now.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| It's already become an arms race. KYC identity services are
| already adding liveness and deep fake detection features.
| intrasight wrote:
| In the future, TVs and monitors and smartphones will have
| built-in "truth meters".
|
| Face-to-face is only applicable with you small social
| network.
| ilaksh wrote:
| I actually think that live, full body AI-generated realistic
| avatars (sometimes imitating celebrities to one degree or
| another) will become an everyday part of life for many people
| within the next 5-10 years.
|
| I assume that full-on impersonation will still be illegal, but
| certain looks that are sometimes quite similar to a real
| celebrity will trend now and then.
|
| The context for this is the continual improvement in the
| capabilities and comfort of VR/AR devices. The biggest one I
| think is going to be lightweight goggles and eventually
| glasses. But also the ability to stream realistic 3d scenes and
| people using AI compression (including erasing the goggles or
| glasses if desired) could make the concept of going to a
| physical place for an event or even looking exactly like
| yourself feel somewhat quaint.
| thrown_22 wrote:
| >Anyone in the field spent time thinking on this or has had
| similar notions?
|
| Skepticism in general will only be applied to people we don't
| like and ignored for people we do.
|
| The continued lapping up of blatant Ukrainian propaganda in
| mains stream media for example doesn't even need photoshop to
| be believed, just the vague 'sources said'.
| tshaddox wrote:
| I don't think it will change much.
|
| I think for claims that you think are important to determine an
| objective truth value for (like who the President of the U.S.
| is), your determinism mechanism is based on trusting sources
| you deem reliable and looking for broad agreement among many
| sources you deem to be independent. You're probably not just
| looking at a single sourceless video of Ronald Reagan behaving
| as if he's the president and believing that claim because the
| video couldn't possibly have been faked.
|
| And for other claim that you _don 't_ think are important to
| determine an objective truth value for, I don't think you need
| very high-fidelity evidence anyway. For example, people have no
| trouble believing claims that corroborate their closely-held
| ideologies even with very low-fidelity fraudulent evidence, or
| even claims made with no attempt whatsoever to provide even
| fraudulent evidence!
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| I'd love that to be true, but I think we can use text on social
| media as a guide here. It's already as easy to type a lie as
| typing the truth, and I'm pretty sure lots of made up
| comments/posts on reddit get taken as truth by tons of people,
| for example.
| cortesoft wrote:
| No, people will continue to believe as true videos that match
| their expectations and disbelieve those that don't
| NavinF wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/2650/
| kyleplum wrote:
| There are ongoing efforts to enable digital signatures of
| online media. The idea is that you (or your browser) can
| validate that an image or video is unmodified from the source
| that produced it.
|
| https://contentauthenticity.org/
| russdill wrote:
| There are so many technical hurdles to something like this, I
| don't see it as a solution anytime soon or ever.
| kyleplum wrote:
| It's not as far away as one might think.
|
| There was a demo earlier this year (Jan) showcasing the
| proposed 1.0 spec working in Microsoft Edge:
| https://c2pa.org/jan-2022_event/
| russdill wrote:
| The browser side is not where all the hurdles occur. It's
| on the capture side and the key/certificate
| management/revocation side.
| bregma wrote:
| > wouldn't this lead to people being more mindful of what they
| watch and interact with?
|
| Have you been paying any attention to what's going on the last
| several years?
| alecfreudenberg wrote:
| Yeah a little more skepticism will be nice, but I still
| personally see myself getting fleeced every now and then.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| It will also lead to "that's a deepfake!" as an excuse given
| after getting caught on camera.
| dagurp wrote:
| Let's just hope that fake detection technology stays ahead
| of any innovations in this field
| Loughla wrote:
| Bingo.
|
| It's less about using fakes to push your agenda, and more
| about being able to (plausibly or implausibly it doesn't
| matter) claim that whatever video is a deepfake.
|
| The truth is meaningless, and as tools like deepfakes
| become more and more sophisticated, it's harder and harder
| to establish baseline realities.
|
| And someone is benefiting from that shift away from
| reality, I just don't know who.
| autoexec wrote:
| which will lead to people trusting forensic experts and
| corroborating data/witnesses. If you were a Karen caught in
| an embarrassing public meltdown you could absolutely say
| that the video was deepfaked and you were really just home
| alone sleeping at the time, but when 7 different people's
| cell phone videos, multiple security cameras, two dashcams,
| 14 ring cams, GPS data captured from your mobile device,
| and one police surveillance drone all agree it was you
| that's not going to work out so well.
|
| People made the same arguments about photoshop, but it's
| really not a problem. Almost never is a single video the
| only evidence of anything and in the cases where it is and
| that video can't be verified it's probably best not to ruin
| someone's life over it.
| novaRom wrote:
| The Great Dictator 2023 with Charlie Chaplin would be great!
| OscarCunningham wrote:
| TV shows won't need to do casting for extras any more, they'll
| just have the main cast and then one person who plays all the
| other characters.
| theptip wrote:
| > But if you want to describe human activities in a text-to-video
| prompt (instead of using footage of real people as a guideline),
| and you're expecting convincing and photoreal results that last
| more than 2-3 seconds, the system in question is going to need an
| extraordinary, almost Akashic knowledge about many more things
| than Stable Diffusion (or any other existing or planned deepfake
| system) knows anything about.
|
| > These include anatomy, psychology, basic anthropology,
| probability, gravity, kinematics, inverse kinematics, and
| physics, to name but a few. Worse, the system will need temporal
| understanding of such events and concepts...
|
| I wonder if unsupervised learning (as could be achieved by just
| pointing a video camera at people walking around a mall) will
| become more useful for these sorts of model; one could imagine
| training an unsupervised first-pass that simply learns what kind
| of constraints physics, IK, temporality, and so on will provide.
| Then given that foundation model, one could layer supervised
| training of labels to get the "script-to-video" translation.
|
| Basically it seems to me (not a specialist!) that a lot of the
| "new complexity" involved in going from static to dynamic, and
| image to video, doesn't necessarily require supervision in the
| same way that the existing conceptual mappings for text-to-image
| do.
|
| Combined with the insights from the recent Chinchilla paper[1]
| from DeepMind (which suggested current models could achieve equal
| performance if trained with more data and fewer parameters),
| perhaps we don't actually need multiple OOMs of parameter
| increases to achieve the leap to video.
|
| Again, this is not my field, so the above is just idle
| speculation.
|
| [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.15556
| finnh wrote:
| This might be an outlier, but I think the benefit of completely
| outlawing deepfakes is worth the "but freedom!" harm.
|
| I think deepfakes have the power to do much more real, immediate
| damage to society vs the "threat" of AGI
| ilaksh wrote:
| What we need are digital identify verification strategies for
| content, such as associating cryptographic signatures with
| videos.
| bdowling wrote:
| Appropriation of name or likeness is already a tort that
| defendants can be held civilly liable for. Would you also make
| it a crime?
| mixedCase wrote:
| I don't see them challenging the veracity of media any more
| than photoshop and video editing already do, specially since ML
| can be used to automatically detect tampering. So, what's the
| damage to society you fear?
| aszantu wrote:
| I think, the kids got this, they will learn how to live with
| this and adapt to it. But yes, the older generation who still
| depend on what they see on the internet, will suffer for a
| while
| btbuildem wrote:
| It's interesting to consider the "full body" deepfakes, but
| wouldn't the limitation of face deepfakes be even more
| constraining here? The proportions of limbs' length vs torso, hip
| / shoulder ratio etc -- it seems like a more effective approach
| (and something already in commercial use) would be mocap + models
| -- and that's just for still images.
|
| For motion, there's yet another layer of fakery required (and
| this is something security / identity detection systems tackle
| nowadays) -- stuff like gait, typical motions or gestures or even
| poses. To deepfake a Tom Cruise clone, you need to not just look
| like the actor, but project the same manic energy, and signature
| movements.
| [deleted]
| Minor49er wrote:
| The Jennifer Connelly and Henry Cavill demo on that page makes me
| think of the Scramble Suit from A Scanner Darkly
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aS4xhTaIPc
| munk-a wrote:
| The road to realistic full-body deepfakes will be through the
| adult entertainment industry because of course it will. Some
| academics may begin the discussion but at the end of the day this
| is one part of AI image generation that has a clear and extremely
| large profit motive and won't struggle to find funding in any
| way.
|
| I'm pretty sure Slashdot is willing to put up the money for
| thousands of renders of "Natalie Portman pours Hot Grits over
| <thing>" alone.
| bsenftner wrote:
| No, it is economically infeasible because any such professional
| service would be a lawsuit engine.
| mochomocha wrote:
| In a soon-approaching world where all movies have deep-fake
| actors, popular music is generated etc. how do you approach the
| economics of creativity and content generation?
|
| Should Tom Cruise heirs receive a perpetual rent 200 years from
| now when Mission Impossible 57 staring their ancestor is airing?
|
| What regulation should be put in place / would be effective in a
| world where any teen with the latest trending scoial media app on
| their phone can realistically impersonate a celebrity in real-
| time for likes?
| [deleted]
| nightski wrote:
| Technology is an enabler. Your hypothetical scenario of Tom
| Cruise's legacy lasting to Mission Impossible 57 is not
| probable imo. People get bored.
|
| Instead we'll probably see a bunch of crap, but on top of that
| crap it will allow people who never would of had a chance
| before (no connections, money, etc..) to be discovered who have
| true talent. It lowers the bar to content creation
| significantly.
| intrasight wrote:
| I think that we will have some immortal actors - but not too
| many. I don't think Tom Cruise will be one of them.
|
| > to be discovered who have true talent.
|
| How so?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-22 23:00 UTC)