[HN Gopher] Google and Microsoft Are Supercharging AI Deepfake Porn
___________________________________________________________________
Google and Microsoft Are Supercharging AI Deepfake Porn
Author : imichael
Score : 14 points
Date : 2023-08-24 20:20 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| chrisjj wrote:
| https://archive.ph/7X04F
| chrisjj wrote:
| > "deepfakes" -- videos made with artificial intelligence that
| fabricate a lifelike simulation of a sexual act featuring the
| face of a real woman.
|
| What?? AI doesn't work on men?? ;)
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| If deepfake porn becomes trivial to generate, doesn't that by
| definition make all revenge and extortion porn worthless because
| now anybody can make porn of anybody else?
|
| It seems like a natural continuation of being able to Photoshop
| people's faces onto strangers in compromising situations. Is this
| not just a better version of that?
|
| Seems like fighting it would only make fake porn more valuable
| and dangerous.
| cuttysnark wrote:
| > natural continuation of being able to Photoshop people's
| faces
|
| This is where I'm at as well, where it differs IMO is: the
| throughput/variety and the zero barrier to entry--even the most
| gifted 'shopper could only work so fast and with whatever
| available media. It would be possible to deconstruct the image
| to know face from X, background from Y. And still, virtually
| all photoshops have "tells" -- they're "off" with regard to
| lighting, perspective, etc. and it varies from artist to
| artist.
|
| Tools exist that can tell which pixels were "disturbed" or
| otherwise inconsistent with the rest of the image. Being able
| to spot a Photoshopped image is an internet joke and true life
| skill--"it's a 'shop. I can tell by the pixels and from years
| of seeing 'shops"
|
| AI-generated images removes the maker's mark, and despite
| hilariously struggling with anatomy, seldom gets lighting or
| coloring "wrong" in a way that a human might.
| 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
| That's all sensible. My point still remains that when the
| cost, time and technical competence of generating fake porn
| of someone approach 0, and everybody knows it, then the value
| of whatever porn you might have of that person is also 0,
| which is the state we ultimately want to get to.
|
| Same thing with voice, we're almost at the point where
| anybody can spoof anybody else's voice with barely any
| effort. We're going to get used to a world where voices mean
| nothing.
| zb3 wrote:
| Another bullshit article. Thanks to articles like this companies
| waste resources on "ai safety" which practically means the model
| refuses basic requests because "oh it might offend someone and
| some journalist might smear our company".
|
| Meanwhile open-source models are already there and are be here to
| stay. So instead of trying to uphold the unsustainable status-quo
| that images are trustworthy, it's time to realize they aren't.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related recent article:
|
| _Inside the AI porn marketplace_
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37248949
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-24 23:02 UTC)