[HN Gopher] Moon Disaster
___________________________________________________________________
Moon Disaster
Author : plurby
Score : 222 points
Date : 2022-11-06 11:19 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (moondisaster.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (moondisaster.org)
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| The technology has came a long way since the music video for "Up
| with People" by Lambchop:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4PxY_RPBeM
| Hard_Space wrote:
| Ugh, an embedded player with no volume control.
| canadianfella wrote:
| SpaghettiCthulu wrote:
| And it doesn't work for me on Chrome for Android at all.
| w_for_wumbo wrote:
| What's amazing to me is the possibility to experience the "What-
| if" scenario, for a second. I now have a memory of watching the
| moon landing fail, even though this never happened, it's still a
| real memory that I can attach thought and emotion to.
| hackeraccount wrote:
| I watched it without sound and it didn't seem to work as well.
| Hard to say but the body language didn't read right and there
| seemed to be artifacts.
|
| I'd have to watch Nixon's resignation speech and this without
| sound back to back.
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| Nixon's voice sounded synthesized and not very much like him.
| To be it was still reasonably compelling with sound though
| simonjgreen wrote:
| If you haven't seen "For All Mankind" now is the time to watch
| the first episode.
| orf wrote:
| Why? It's not particularly good.
| system16 wrote:
| I enjoyed it, although not as much as most critics. I found
| it took a few episodes to hit its stride, and enjoyed the
| first and second seasons. At its heart it's a character
| drama, so if you're watching it only for the science
| interesting moments are few and far between.
|
| Later episodes fall victim to lazy "a major catastrophe is
| about to occur, engineering team comes up with moonshot
| solution just in the nick of time to save the day" more often
| than I'd like. And the lesbian romance storyline seemed
| forced. I could barely finish the third season as it really
| went off the rails.
| googlryas wrote:
| I pretty much agree with this take.
|
| The aleida character is the worst though. She somehow has
| super powers that no one else posseses, but they never
| articulate her thought process or how she does it. It's
| just: entire team of rocket scientists stare at problem
| fruitlessly. Aleida stares at problem, inspiring music
| plays, her eyes light up and she tells you the solution.
| And then she explains simple things like impulse vs
| momentum to other rocket scientists, as if they didn't
| understand it before.
| fortyseven wrote:
| That's how it rolled for me, as well. That first season was
| perfect as a "what if" exploration. Then it like if ran out
| of gas quick and grew much less plausible...
|
| The parts I loved about it faded away, but I stuck around
| anyway. :P
| ShamelessC wrote:
| In the spirit of your comment:
|
| Because. It's actually very good.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| The show's premise is a nuanced, optimistic take on what
| humanity might have achieved had we continued the space
| race. It focuses on historical plausibility, a bit like The
| West Wing. The main characters "pay the price" for this
| early progress in the way you imagine a hero
| astronaut/cosmonaut might - with their lives and/or
| livelihoods.
|
| I watched it with my dad however and he wouldn't shut up
| about "wokeness" (we disagree on a few things). The show is
| effectively an imagining of "America, made great in the
| first place", and at least the core premise - that we lost
| our hunger for exploration after winning the space race,
| _used to be_ a bipartisan talking point.
|
| Absolutely recommend it. Also, the imagined space shuttles
| they get to come up with are amazing.
| kybernetyk wrote:
| The premise is intriguing. I was really looking towards
| the show. Until I watched the first episode. Sadly the
| show turned out to be boring.
| dmitriid wrote:
| > I watched it with my dad however and he wouldn't shut
| up about "wokeness"
|
| I thought it was leaning a bit too heavily on what we
| consider modern issues. But then it turns out that some
| of the characters in the story where real and lived
| through this or something close to this (I forget now,
| but one of the women astronauts that never got to fly was
| a real person)
| mbernstein wrote:
| The majority of people and critics reviewing it disagree with
| you as do I :). Personal preferences aside, the recreated
| Nixon footage and conversations are well done and quite
| convincing, which was the point of watching it I believe.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Meh. It spent way too much on lgbt issues for an alternate
| history / space exploration show.
|
| Otherwise it was ok.
| fortyseven wrote:
| Aww, you poor thing. Life is so difficult. :(
| codeflo wrote:
| Waste of time. 4 minutes of useless filler, followed by 2 minutes
| of bad voice synthesis. Not convincing at all, and all the padded
| content just serves to get your hopes up.
| Tepix wrote:
| I'm sure Americans are more familiar with Nixons voice and
| appearance. It looked and sounded good to me.
| aflag wrote:
| I'm not american and I can't recall if I heard him before,
| but the voice definitely felt a bit robotic. Also, he seemed
| to move his head in unnatural ways (even if he has some sort
| of nervous tick). Finally, if you look at his neck, jaw and
| shadow movement, you'll see some weird clipping going on.
| Granted, if I was not looking for it, I may haven't noticed.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| darkerside wrote:
| It must be so tempting to end these things with, "Live from New
| York, it's Saturday night!"
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| Pan to audience where we see Henry Kissinger clapping while
| flanked by three supermodels on each arm.
| PM_me_your_math wrote:
| That creates a very funny visual although you forgot to
| mention the rings, gold chain, and serpent cane.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| Or perhaps the magic pimp cane from Petey Wheatstraw?
| _jal wrote:
| How British spooks have verified video:
|
| http://hummingbirdclock.info/about
|
| "The UK national electrical grid delivers power across the
| country. This mains power supply makes a constant humming sound,
| yet there are tiny changes to the frequency of this sound every
| second. Most recordings made in the UK have a trace of mains hum
| on them and this can be forensically analysed to determine the
| time and date they were made, and as a result, whether anyone has
| edited the recording."
| wheelerof4te wrote:
| Is the video of the trip to the moon with the crew's comments
| genuine?
|
| I'm too young to tell.
| drivers99 wrote:
| There was a great IMAX documentary on the 50th anniversary of
| the mission made by searching and scanning all original
| footage. I highly recommend it!
|
| Amazon Prime Video link https://www.amazon.com/Apollo-11-Todd-
| Douglas-Miller/dp/B07R...
| Netcob wrote:
| Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1484/
| wildrhythms wrote:
| This is amazing, though I think the voice is one of the hardest
| problems for deepfakes. I find there is a lot of inflection and
| tonality missing from synthesized voices. Even with a 'old TV
| broadcast' sound filter to mask some of that stuff, I think
| people are quite good at recognizing when a voice isn't totally
| human :) But the visuals in this production are incredibly
| convincing to me.
| cdolan wrote:
| If you have seen the Apollo 11 movie that was released a few
| years ago, the footage is all very familiar (and real).
|
| They spliced the content in a way that is misleading
| imiric wrote:
| This film is from 2019, and the tech has advanced substantially
| since then.
|
| E.g. have you heard the voices from https://play.ht/ ?
|
| Those capture inflection and tonality quite well, and are able
| to reproduce near-natural sounding laughter, pauses, and other
| human qualities. I wouldn't say it's perfect just yet, but give
| it another ~5 years and it will get there.
| Vespasian wrote:
| Wow.
|
| and they are multilingual as well.
|
| For me it was the first time to (afaik) to hear tts of this
| Quality in my native language (which is a major one)
| fortran77 wrote:
| Of course today, half the population would start thinking this
| was some vast conspiracy (the astronauts were just sent to a
| soundstage in arizona) and the other half would be tweeting "I
| don't care about 3 overprivileged men"
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| _Whitey on the Moon_ poem by Gil Scott Heron (1970):
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otwkXZ0SmTs
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| All of the comments on how easy this was to spot are laughable.
| Of course it was easy to spot. The moon landing DID in fact
| happen and we all know it. Let's see you try again when you have
| no idea you could be looking at a deepfake.
| [deleted]
| vivegi wrote:
| One could easily spot the weird "micronodding" in the video and
| the audio wasn't super great either.
| mariuolo wrote:
| Nixon's voice sounds too gravelly.
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| doodlebugging wrote:
| The audio and video of Nixon was obviously fake. I knew the text
| of the speech was real since it was released years ago and though
| I couldn't remember all of it, I do remember how he tried to set
| the narrative of heroes lost.
|
| I was a kid back then and I watched the TV broadcasts as they
| happened or as they were first reported so I was already familiar
| with those short videos though I originally saw them all on a
| black and white television. I have seen the same footage in color
| a number of times over the years since.
|
| Growing up during this time period there was a sense of wonder,
| awe, hope, and we could look forward to even more missions and
| discoveries. It was a great time to be an American and there was
| some enhanced prestige associated with being a Texan since a lot
| of this happened because NASA was in Houston. Texas schools
| focused on science, technology, mathematics, and kids fitness was
| still encouraged through programs like the President's Physical
| Fitness tests. Even today I weigh only 30 lbs (13.6 kg, 2.14
| stone) more than I weighed when I graduated high school. That
| part of the message stuck with me.
|
| The video had too many repeat sections that were obvious fakes
| since it was too jerky. Live video and audio never sounded or
| looked that bad even when you were watching with a tuned rabbit
| ear antenna.
|
| I have a feeling that the audio portion of the astronaut dialog
| designed to lead the viewer to believe that they had seen bad
| things happen was fake too and it used manipulated footage to
| build the mental image.
|
| It was good seeing Walter Cronkite again. We watched Chet Huntley
| and David Brinkley a lot too. I think they were NBC news.
| Journalism has sure fallen on hard times over the last 40 years
| after we (the hearts and minds of the American people) were sold
| out to corporate pigs by a change in regulations that allowed one
| corporate entity to control all forms of media available locally.
| Independent local newsrooms could not compete with a well-funded
| national operation that could pump news stories into your homes
| over television, radio, and through a competing newspaper. Local
| newspapers sold out to national interests who used (and still
| use) partisan editorial control to sell their narrative. If you
| are under 40 your news has been a feed of carefully curated
| stories delivered by pretty faces intended to keep you engaged.
| Using those pretty faces to create a facade of attractive people
| with nearly plastic features evidently works. One network in
| particular uses so much makeup even on the male personnel that
| could all be wearing silicone masks during the broadcasts. This
| is intended to distract you from the message and to keep you
| watching their channel. Remember that Huntley, Cronkite, and
| other journalists on television every night weren't chosen for
| their looks. They were pretty ordinary looking men who would
| probably be a 5/10 where today's anchors are gussied up to try to
| hit an 8/10 appearance. You won't see any two-baggers on TV
| nowadays.
|
| Unfortunately, all this new deep fake technology will be
| convincing enough to fool a lot of people. Propaganda is a huge
| problem today in all media forms without resorting to totally
| faked broadcasts delivering invented "truths". Our educational
| system is failing the people of the United States in many areas
| as religion goes back into classrooms, charter schools rob the
| public school systems, and private schools increasingly become a
| pathway for wealthier parents to pass their own political,
| religious, or social beliefs on to their kids with the assistance
| of others in their social circles. It is a tool for siloing the
| next generation so that they have none of the normal social
| interactions with people from different backgrounds that they
| would have had in a public school setting. This helps the older
| generation maintain social problems like racism, homophobia
| (through some religious-based private schools), women's place in
| society, etc.
|
| A long time ago I thought we were getting close to solving
| problems like racism. As an older adult I see that we lost our
| way, not because it is intractable but because we were
| intentionally led back to the well-traveled path by bad actors
| after we had initially collectively chosen the less-traveled
| branch which offered a solution. Picking the less-traveled branch
| of the trail required us to be courageous, to be open-minded,
| empathetic, and civil to each other. Instead, while navigating
| this difficult path we chose leaders who did not deserve our
| confidence and who consistently, and intentionally in some cases,
| failed us eventually steering us back on to the original track
| where we are today.
|
| Since life moves in cycles we will always encounter those
| branches in the trail that present opportunity and require
| courage. Thus there can always be hope that we will either
| willing choose to trace an alternate cycle or accidentally
| stumble onto the less-worn path and decide that it is more
| interesting and then decide collectively that we should continue
| that adventure.
|
| And so it goes...
| Rimintil wrote:
| > Journalism has sure fallen on hard times over the last 40
| years
|
| Consider watching Frontline on PBS. While not the same format,
| the journalism is well done.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| That is one of my trusted sources. I love their in-depth
| reporting. I've supported PBS for decades. They have a lot of
| great content.
|
| Thanks for reading.
| czep wrote:
| There are too many insightful and thoughtful points in your
| comment for a single upvote to repay, so I must thank you with
| a reply. Becoming so demoralized with the present media and
| political landscape, it is comforting to find that there still
| remain semblances of reason for which I may again briefly
| restore some measure of sanity. Thank you.
| doodlebugging wrote:
| Thank you for reading all of that. I read a lot and tend to
| be long-winded when I write and I know that a lot of people's
| attention spans are pretty short. I'm glad you found
| something of value in the words. That was my hope.
|
| You're welcome.
| sakarisson wrote:
| Very nicely directed and edited video!
|
| Though I must say that if the intention of the video was to make
| me doubt abilities to spot deep fakes, it didn't manage to
| achieve its goal. Both Nixon's face movements and voice felt
| highly unnatural and robotic to me. Although I'm sure it won't be
| many years until the results of such experiments will be come
| indistinguishable, we are not quite there yet.
| driverdan wrote:
| His face movements were excellent, they were much like Nixon's
| real mannerisms. The problem was the edges of his face were
| pretty bad. The voice was also bad, with obvious ghosting and
| glitches.
|
| That said as someone else pointed out this was done in 2019. If
| this was made today the face edges would be much better and
| audio clearer. I'd love to see this remade now.
| zxcvbn4038 wrote:
| No, that was just Nixon. ;)
| rainbowzootsuit wrote:
| Wait until they do Mark Zuckerberg; he already dwells in the
| uncanny valley.
| soulofmischief wrote:
| Zuck's been done.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WfZuNceFDM&t=255
| mabbo wrote:
| It's not perfect. But it's crawling up the other side of the
| uncanny valley.
|
| Imagine where this tech will be in five years.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| Eh, you mean in 2023?
| jtvjan wrote:
| An animator used the voice cloning tech to make a "leaked
| episode" of a cartoon that ended years ago:
| https://youtu.be/shp9jzJ4MOw
|
| It's funny how both that and this used "low sound quality" to
| mask the imperfections in the cloned voice. But I suppose it's
| only a matter of time before that's no longer necessary.
| foobarbecue wrote:
| Much as everyone supposes it's just a matter of time before
| cars are truly driverless.
| bergenty wrote:
| Waymo is already doing this in multiple cities. What's your
| point?
| fuckelonmusk wrote:
| AirStreamer27 wrote:
| This was painfully easy. If you want to fool people into
| believing deepfakes, you'll need to do a better job
| jethkl wrote:
| This project is from 2019. The tools to do this are now more
| widely available and the realism has advanced considerably since
| then. This project was an early example that illustrated to a
| wide audience that audio and video are no longer reliable sources
| of truth. By comparison, the techniques used in Forrest Gump
| (1994) look crude.
| voidz wrote:
| Isn't it amazing how much things improve in so little time.
| Things used to go so slow, now they go exponentially faster.
| [deleted]
| lagrange77 wrote:
| Yeah it's really amazing.
|
| > Things used to go so slow, now they go exponentially
| faster.
|
| Going slow at the beginning is actually part of exponentials.
| couchand wrote:
| Well it's only the beginning and slow relative to what
| comes after. Relative to what came before, it's much later
| and faster!
| mhh__ wrote:
| "There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks
| where decades happen"
| HPMOR wrote:
| As a corollary, it takes decades where nothing observable
| happens to have the weeks where decades happen.
| junon wrote:
| Err, what? The site says it's both real and fake. It glitched and
| let me press both to see the answers.
|
| On "fake" it says "nice try, but real". On "real" it says "nice
| try, but it's fake, we edited the mouth".
|
| So... which is it? Did I miss something?
| fourthark wrote:
| The text and Apollo footage were real; Nixon's face and voice
| were fake.
| [deleted]
| robinsonb5 wrote:
| Every few years I re-watch the Running Man - and it gets scarier
| every time. Last time I watched it we only nearly had the video
| forgery technology from the movie (in civilian hands, at least).
| Now it actually exists.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| What are some ways to verify video integrity?
|
| 1) Multiple camera angles. A simultaneous left / front / right
| view of a person speaking would be much harder to fake.
|
| 2) Higher-resolution video and high-quality audio are harder to
| fake, although this might not be a problem for entities with
| sufficient resources and motivation.
|
| 3) Attribution to a real person. While this raises problems for
| people who want to remain anonymous due to very reasonable fears
| of retaliation, it also makes it harder to push fakes out to
| social media.
|
| Note many fake 'breaking news' videos are just stiched together
| old footage, no AI deepfake required. This has been noticeable
| across multiple platforms wrt Ukraine, for example:
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/60867414
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| The founder of Bellingcat discusses this in his recent book.
|
| He mentions things like "where/when did this happen", where
| were the people/things in the video at that time, which source
| did this arise from. Basically there's a whole web of context
| to any event, which is why the breaking news is the best place
| for this, but the long term viability is much harder.
|
| He also mentions some NYT tech for timestamping their videos as
| they record them and to detect manipulation.
| amelius wrote:
| Can you say more about this tech? I'm curious now :)
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| https://www.newsprovenanceproject.com/
|
| Mentioned on page 206, "The Perils and Opportunities of
| Artificial Intelligence" of the book.
|
| https://c2pa.org/ seems to be the latest iteration of it.
|
| > What is the Coalition for Content Provenance and
| Authenticity (C2PA)?
|
| > The C2PA is a Joint Development Foundation project to
| collectively build an end-to-end open technical standard to
| provide publishers, creators, and consumers with opt-in,
| flexible ways to understand the authenticity and provenance
| of different types of media. C2PA opposes efforts to make
| content provenance measures mandatory.
| jchanimal wrote:
| Starling Lab focuses on data integrity for video evidence. It's
| worth checking out their recent efforts here:
| https://sfi.usc.edu/news/2022/06/33571-starling-lab-and-hala...
| samatman wrote:
| Video integrity is an idea we have to let go of. Audio is
| robustly fakeable at this point, video is coming up to the
| threshold fast.
|
| What we can have is attestation and reputation, then
| provenance.
|
| It starts with a container format that allows signatures of
| both the entire video with audio, audio only, and video only,
| along with reasonable segments (three seconds?) of each of
| these.
|
| Excerpts of any of these can be transcluded into another such
| container. The editor can transform it in any way, the
| resulting display doesn't have to match the particulars of the
| excerpt (captioning, noise filtering, color correction) but the
| excerpt is itself included, or at least the signature.
|
| It would be useful for some people to have cameras which do
| this at the moment of recording, along with GPS, cell location
| data, and so on, to get really bulletproof documentary footage.
|
| I don't want that built into my phone, necessarily. As a
| container format and ffmpeg style tool, this would support
| anonymous attestation which can be demonstrated by the
| keyholder at any future time. As a built-in subpoena-able
| feature of my phone or mirrorless camera? Hmm, probably don't
| want that. If it snitches proactively, not a chance in hell.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Even just a verifiable time stamp would be a big win.
| initplus wrote:
| Building attestation into hardware sounds like a good idea in
| theory, but doesn't actually work. All it tells you is "this
| is what the camera saw", it doesn't actually tell you that
| what the camera saw was real. You can just point your camera
| at a high resolution screen playing a doctored video, and so
| sign whatever doctored content you like. Or take a video of a
| real faked scene with actors.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Unfortunately, while those are good ideas, they're also cat and
| mouse games. It's a bit like saying that client side anti-cheat
| software makes it harder to cheat in videogames. It does, but
| you're looking for an unbeatable test, which doesn't exist.
|
| Nothing exemplified this problem more than the recent Twitter
| takeover. On tiktok, fake news was running rampant, and I saw
| it happen in real time. At one point someone said that a
| Twitter employee banned Elon on his way out, while showing a
| screenshot of the "eIon musk" fake account:
| https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRx6G9mG/
|
| There were also actual deepfakes of Elon's voice that fooled
| me. I wish I saved it, since it's highly relevant to this
| thread. But it only became clear it was a fake when it started
| saying ridiculous things. They even had a video of Elon
| talking, and they didn't have to bother syncing his lips with
| the audio. Viral clips just need a veneer of authenticity to
| short circuit our monkey brains.
|
| It wasn't till I fell for that deepfake that I started
| realizing how much of a problem we might be facing. The next
| few presidential candidates might need to put out statements
| saying "X wasn't true," while the majority of people already
| believe X because they saw it happen live on tiktok.
| pjc50 wrote:
| There's been a phenomenon of verified accounts basically
| doing ""suicide by cop"": changing their display name and
| profile pic to match Elon Musk and then doing a bunch of joke
| tweets as him, which are great fun until they are caught and
| banned.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Ah, then I was got by that fake twitter ban joke and didn't
| realize it till now. In my defense, it's a cute little
| meaningless stunt that I'd like to imagine myself doing in
| similar circumstances, though upon a bit of thought it seems
| unlikely since it could cost you a severance that might be
| pretty valuable - there a plenty of strings attached to those
| to keep the severees in line.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Yeah, that's all true. This might lead to a revival of
| professional journalism and actual reporting, however - i.e.
| if a known reporter with a good track record writes, 'today
| this presidential candidate said X, and I heard it myself',
| then that might become a more reliable information source
| than any audio or video clip.
| tomalpha wrote:
| Ah, but what happens when a deepfake video of that
| professional journalist starts going round saying 'today
| this presidential candidate said X, and I heard it myself'
| that matches the previous deepfake?
|
| I guess the counter (which I think you're pointing out) to
| that is to publish _text_ to a known-trusted website rather
| than a video, but I wonder how many folks who get their
| "news" from TikTok would read it.
| ricardonunez wrote:
| That's when real verified accounts gain value but since
| now anybody can be verified, it is going to become a
| problem.
| necovek wrote:
| Uhm, I am not sure I get the relationship: if anyone can
| get verified, that's only a win.
|
| By "verified", I assume Twitter has _verified_ that their
| identity on Twitter matches their real life identity, and
| I don 't see a problem with anyone having an ability to
| claim that. What's wrong with Jane Random being verified
| that she _is_ Jane Random?
|
| If people are basing their trust not on someone's
| identity and history, but on their celebrity (blue mark
| so far), that's where the problem is.
| Hextinium wrote:
| The problem arises where an account gets verified as one
| thing and then changes to become another, this happens
| all the time with trolls who can make/buy/extort verified
| accounts.
|
| They then spoof being the real person, and verification
| then means absolutely nothing cause they are functionally
| identical to a bypasser.
|
| By having verification be really hard to get, trolls have
| a lot harder time getting accounts and the problem is
| smaller in scope.
| pjc50 wrote:
| All the evidence points towwards the opposite: it's more
| profitable to simply provide entertaining lies. Does nobody
| remember the Alex Jones fiasco?
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| It's very much a stretch to compare Alex Jones to normal
| journalists, as much as most people seem to dislike
| journalists on this site.
| mrshadowgoose wrote:
| It would require hardware changes, but we already have all the
| required cryptographic primitives to mostly mitigate these
| concerns.
|
| Trusted timestamping can attest that a given piece of media was
| not created after a given instance in time.
|
| Trusted hardware running trusted code, combined with remote
| attestation, can offer a high-degree of assurance that a given
| video clip is not a product of CGI/ML.
|
| Digital signatures by the entity responsible for a video clip's
| capture/creation mitigates the creation of media not sanctioned
| by that entity. Subjects in a particular piece of media could
| additionally apply their digital signatures to further increase
| trust in its authenticity. (This is effectively a
| cryptographically enforced version of your third point.)
|
| This isn't a silver bullet, and suffers all the pitfalls
| normally encountered in the implementation of cryptographic
| schemes.
| couchand wrote:
| Trusted by whom?
| mrshadowgoose wrote:
| Trusted by whatever certification entities (ideally
| multiple ones, from non-aligned states) decide to deem a
| certain piece of hardware as "trusted". And then by
| extension, by any individual that trusts those particular
| certification authorities.
|
| Yes, I'm aware this leaves the door open for subversion of
| certification authorities by nation-states. It's still
| better than the nothing we have today.
| nullc wrote:
| I can just project a video into a camera's lens...
| mrshadowgoose wrote:
| Sure, and if you eventually get caught, nobody would trust
| anything that you've digitally signed.
| nullc wrote:
| You can say that just as well about a world without the
| camera hocus pocus part.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Fun fact: the original Apollo TV broadcast from the surface
| of the moon was "slow scan", with a different resolution
| and framerate to broadcast TV. The conversion process was
| to display it on a suitable slow-scan TV (long retention
| phosphor) and .. point a terrestrial camera at the TV.
| pfoof wrote:
| >Multiple camera angles. A simultaneous left / front / right
| view of a person speaking
|
| With enough training data and modified network this can also be
| done.
| permo-w wrote:
| one thing I'll say is that that speech was really well-written.
| if GPT-3 could do that, the profession of speech-writing would be
| on its way out
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-06 23:00 UTC)