[HN Gopher] Deep Live Cam: Real-time face swapping and one-click...
___________________________________________________________________
Deep Live Cam: Real-time face swapping and one-click video deepfake
tool
Author : blini2077
Score : 189 points
Date : 2024-08-10 13:05 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (deeplive.cam)
(TXT) w3m dump (deeplive.cam)
| blini2077 wrote:
| Deep Live Cam is a cutting-edge AI tool that enables real-time
| face replacement in videos or images using just a single photo.
| Perfect for video production, animation, and more.
| emsign wrote:
| I don't want to see faked videos.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Son, you no longer have an option on our free service. But
| you can subscribe to our deep fake-free service for only
| $89.99/month.
| exe34 wrote:
| You won't know the difference.
| luzojeda wrote:
| That only makes it worse.
| exe34 wrote:
| resistance is futile. profits go brrrr.
| corn13read2 wrote:
| Maybe you have been this whole time...
| cs702 wrote:
| Well, I understand how it works, and I still find it freaking
| amazing. The quality is... impressive.
|
| On the flip side, the ability to deep-fake a face in real time on
| a video call is now accessible to pretty much every script kiddie
| out there.
|
| In other words, you can no longer trust what your eyes see on
| video calls.
|
| We live in interesting times.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| It's interesting, because the subconscious ability of the mind
| to identify discrepancies is incredible (even if we ignore that
| feeling we get about something).
|
| The feel of counterfeit bills, the color someone choose to
| wear, the sound that doesn't quite fit.
|
| I think deep-fakes are mostly a danger to people without a lot
| of source material for their minds to compare against. You
| could trick me into believing I was taking with Elon, but not
| my son.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _You could trick me into believing I was taking with Elon,
| but not my son._
|
| And yet there have been several recent studies that show the
| younger someone is, the more likely they are to be scammed
| online.
|
| > In 2021, Gen Xers, Millennials, and Gen Z young adults
| (ages 18-59) were 34% more likely than older adults (ages 60
| and over) to report losing money to fraud,[1] and some types
| of fraud stood out. Younger adults reported losses to online
| shopping fraud - which often started with an ad on social
| media - far more often than any other fraud type, and most
| said they simply did not get the items they ordered.[2]
| Younger adults were over four times more likely than older
| adults to report a loss on an investment scam.[3] Most of
| these were bogus cryptocurrency investment opportunities.
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-visualizations/data-
| spo...
| dexterdog wrote:
| Older people are less likely to invest in high risk, high
| yield.
| Rinzler89 wrote:
| Older people are less likely to have their entire
| personas and private lives fully documented on social
| media.
| eltoxo wrote:
| Younger people really should consider this point.
|
| Personally, I don't use streaming video outside of work
| and there are no videos of me on youtube or any social
| media to train a model on even if someone wanted to.
|
| My mother in her 70s doesn't even have a debit card. She
| thinks the idea is ridiculous and insecure. She writes
| paper checks and that is it. To put her account number on
| an electronic device would be completely unthinkable.
|
| While the average older person might be more easily
| confused by social engineering the attack surface for an
| electronic scam is so tiny compared to the average
| younger person.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Only one photo is needed. I've not looked deep into this
| specific project, but speaking as an early developer of
| likeness transfer trained algorithms, only one image is
| needed, and it can even be a crude sketch - but if one's
| true likeness is captured by an image it can be recreated
| in full 3D. The catch is an individual's specific facial
| expressions, such as the real individual has a slightly
| lopsided smile, or they have smile dimples, or simply
| their characteristic at rest facial positions are absent,
| so they don't look like themselves to those that know
| them.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _She writes paper checks and that is it._
|
| As my accountant says: "For every person in your
| neighborhood committing check fraud, there are ten-
| thousand people around the world trying to steal your
| money online."
| mh- wrote:
| _> She writes paper checks and that is it. To put her
| account number on an electronic device would be
| completely unthinkable._
|
| But she's handing a plaintext copy of her account number
| to everyone she pays with a check..
| bsmithers wrote:
| > And yet there have been several recent studies that show
| the younger someone is, the more likely they are to be
| scammed online.
|
| I think you are misreading the post. Pretty sure they meant
|
| _you could trick me into believing I was talking with
| Elon, but you could not trick me into believing I was
| talking with my son_
|
| To which I agree personally, though I don't know how
| universal this is.
| vincnetas wrote:
| i fell victim to such scam this year (first time i got
| scammed over 40 years). Key factor was that i got link to
| scam shop not from social ad but from my wife :) she got it
| from insta ad. So basically my wife scammed me :)
| emsign wrote:
| What if that source material for young brains gets more and
| more contaminated with artificial junk?
| cs702 wrote:
| The key take-away, for me, is that I should "keep my guard
| up" on any video call about _money or other important
| matters_ , even if other participants on the call are
| colleagues, friends, or relatives. There are no guarantees of
| authenticity anymore. My new motto for video calls is "trust
| by verify."
| despideme wrote:
| There's interesting ambiguity in this comment. I interpret
| the comment as saying, "I could be tricked by a deepfake of a
| stranger due to a lack of experience with their 'true'
| behaviors, but would not be tricked so easily when it's
| someone I know well."
|
| Others here seem to be interpreting the statement as, "I
| could be tricked because I am an older person, while a
| younger person would not be so easily deceived."
| Bluecobra wrote:
| Indeed. Just recently a company got fooled into hiring a remote
| employee who turned out a North Korean hacker:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/us-security-firm...
| emsign wrote:
| Post-truthism has reached live video and is accessible to
| everyone. Turns out it's still only a few weirdos who love to
| use it for grifting purposes. I think most normal people are
| like "what do I need this crazy sh*t for?"
| ibejoeb wrote:
| It's got a lot of uncanny valley going on. Zuck looks like a
| corpse. I'm sure it could fool some people, but I'm not
| terrified yet.
| exe34 wrote:
| I recommend setting up code words with people. I haven't gone
| that far myself yet, but in my mind, there are clear phrases I
| could say to the people in my life that they would be convinced
| it was me. Unfortunately, until I have the specific talk with
| them, I suppose anybody could impersonate me to them.
| rnimmer wrote:
| FTA: "Ethical Use Safeguards
|
| Built-in checks prevent processing of inappropriate content,
| ensuring legal and ethical use."
|
| I see it claims to not process content with nudity, but all of
| the examples on the website demo impersonation of famous people,
| including at least one politician (JD Vance). I'm struggling to
| understand what the authors consider 'ethical' deepfaking? What
| is the intended 'ethical' use case here? Of all the things you
| can build with AI, why this?
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| For many (notably mastercard and VISA), when they say "ethical"
| they really mean anything but porn.
| hackernewds wrote:
| that seems like an overreaction. the card processors ban much
| more questionable trades - such as weapons and terrorism
| financing
| roamerz wrote:
| I think "questionable" is very subjective especially when
| blocking transactions on something that is constitutionally
| protected. I wonder what would happen if a processor banned
| paying for something that ended someone's life on a near
| 1:1 ratio like abortion?
|
| Just using that to highlight the subjective nature of the
| comment.
| coolspot wrote:
| GP comment is misleading. Visa/MC do not block gun/ammo
| purchases in the US.
| roamerz wrote:
| It's not so much Visa/MC but rather the payment
| processors that are at issue here.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| The payment processors interpret the networks' rules, you
| do understand that right? If they're banning something,
| it's because the networks either outright are banning it
| too or have put enough restrictions and constraints in
| place that the liability for the transaction doesn't make
| sense.
|
| The payment processors are doing what the networks tell
| them to do.
|
| It's not like the processors are actively looking for
| ways to turn down money; they want as many transactions
| going through them so they can earn their share of it.
| highcountess wrote:
| There were several efforts to restrict the people's right
| ability to marshal resistance to tyranny and Visa/MC was
| very much involved with that even though they were not
| the only ones.
| lancesells wrote:
| When did this happen?
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| The entire US financial apparatus is part of the problem.
| bee_rider wrote:
| In general I think payment processor are not required to
| associate with anybody. The government (in the US at
| least) is limited in their ability to prevent you from
| buying guns and making porn (a form of speech), but they
| can't make people do the transactions with you; the right
| to have somebody process payments for you is not
| constitutionally protected.
|
| But I'd be at least curious (as a non-lawyer) if there
| could be issues around discriminating against pregnant
| women in the US, since abortion is a service that is only
| used by them.
| parineum wrote:
| The real answer to the guns/abortion comparison is there
| are a lot of people that Will loudly state their
| opposition.
|
| No (or few) politician is going to stand up for porn
| cess11 wrote:
| That's because the state is forcing them to.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| The state has never stopped the funding of terrorism.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/us-taxpayers-may-
| funding-ta...
| cess11 wrote:
| Sure, but that doesn't mean it wants competition in that
| space.
| Maxatar wrote:
| I can't find anything to support your claim about weapons.
| Seems pretty much all online arms dealers I can find
| selling anything from grenades, machine guns, and even
| rocket launchers take credit cards and I'm fairly certain
| stores also accept them too.
| highcountess wrote:
| I am not sure what the current state of the issue is, but
| there was an initial effort to restrict gun sales in
| various devious and deceptive ways since it is illegal to
| overtly do so because it is legal trade and economic
| activity.
|
| I would not be surprised though if the clear illegality
| of the violation of the Constitution of such efforts were
| brought to the attention of the payment processors, and
| they were reminded that they would severely regret
| hastening attention on an effort that still needs to
| happen, a public electronic payment processing capacity.
| happyopossum wrote:
| > grenades, machine guns, and even rocket launchers
|
| Umm, yeah - what country are you buying live grenadesor
| working rocket launcher online with a Mastercard? Cuz
| it's not the US or Canada. And if it's not a live grenade
| or working rocket launcher, it's no different than any
| hunk of metal.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| uh. yeah... us and canada are a tiny fraction of the
| world, also what is really buying using visa or
| mastercard? if i use visa to byy crypto and then get
| explosives (which can be transparently done) there is
| nothing they can or will do about it... - buying things
| online has nothing to do with countries or borders, nor
| is it always clear, to payment providers or even
| customers, what kind of scheme enables a payment..
| sneak wrote:
| I buy weapons with my Visa card all the time.
| PontifexMinimus wrote:
| And backed off from blocking Onlyfans.
| instagraham wrote:
| That they do, but perhaps the relevant context is that while
| porn is globally unregulatable, but the one entity that has
| proven its ability to regulate it (or at least exercise some
| control over it) have been payment processors like Visa and
| Mastercard.
|
| FT had a fantastic podcast on the porn industry and the guy
| behind Mindgeek. Like many stories about multinational
| entities, you constantly hear the usual refrains - noone can
| regulate this, the entities keep changing their name and
| face, there is no accountability, etc. But when Visa and
| Mastercard threaten to pull their payments, the companies
| have to listen.
|
| Visa and mastercard are the de facto regulators of porn
| today, and mostly do so to prevent nonconsentual and extreme
| fetish stuff from being displayed on mainstream platform.
|
| From what I gathered from the podcast, they're not super keen
| on being the regulator - but it's a dirty job and somebody
| has to do it.
| godelski wrote:
| So.... ffmpeg -i porn.mp4 -vf
| "crop=crop_w:crop_h:coord_x:coord_y" "definitely not
| porn.mp4" *faceswap "definitely not porn.mp4*
| ffmpeg -i porn.mp4 -i "swapped definitely not porn.mp4"
| -filter_complex "[0][1]overlay=coord_x:coord_y" -c:a copy
| "deepfake porn.mp4"
|
| Got it
| rikafurude21 wrote:
| # process image to videos if modules.globals.nsfw ==
| False: from modules.predicter import predict_video
| if predict_video(modules.globals.target_path):
| destroy()
| exe34 wrote:
| I'm a big fan of explicit checks like this.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Of all the things you can build with AI, why this?_
|
| That can be asked of 90% of what's come out of the latest AI
| bubble so far.
|
| Like a lot of technology, AI has so much potential for good.
| And we use it for things like games that simulate killing one
| another, or making fake news web sites, or pushing people to
| riot over lies, or making 12-year-olds addicted to apps, or
| eliminating the jobs of people who need those jobs the most,
| or, yes, pornography.
|
| We can do better.
| parineum wrote:
| > AI has so much potential for good.
|
| Like what?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm hoping that at some point the novelty and hype will die
| down so that the headline grabbing "send a follow up email"
| or "summarize call" will get out of the way so the more
| impressive things like detecting medical conditions
| months/years earlier than human doctors will be a much more
| visible. The things for making people lazy are a total
| waste to me.
| arjie wrote:
| My wife used ChatGPT and Adobe's AI to design our wedding
| outfits so there's that. Turned out great!
| tdeck wrote:
| The answer is that anyone working on deepfakes doean't care
| much about ethics or they wouldn't be doing it in the first
| place.
| ithkuil wrote:
| OTOH now that we know the technology is possible, would you
| prefer that only some actors had perhaps the ability to do
| that. or perhaps not and having the lingering doubt that
| anything you see could be deep fake but there could always be
| plausible deniability that it would be too hard to actually
| carry it out.
|
| If the technology is actually made widely available that just
| reveals that the Pandora box was actually already open
| dylan604 wrote:
| The claim of "deepfake" will be much more difficult to
| disprove than "my account was hacked"
| godelski wrote:
| I think this is an oversimplification that undermines your
| goals.
|
| If you're unwilling to recognize the benefits of something,
| it becomes easier to dismiss your argument. Instead, the
| truth is balancing trade-offs and benefits. Certainly there
| is a clear and harmful downside to this tech. But there are
| benefits. It does save a lot of money for the entertainment
| industry when you need to edit or do retakes. The most famous
| example might be superman[0].
|
| The issue is that when the downsides get easy to dismiss, it
| becomes easy to get lost in the upsides. It'll get worse
| because few people consider themselves unethical. We're all
| engineers and we all have fallen for this trap in some way or
| another. But we also need to remember that the road to hell
| isn't paved with malicious intent...
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nxanN85O84
| Vegenoid wrote:
| > But there are benefits. It does save a lot of money for
| the entertainment industry when you need to edit or do
| retakes.
|
| I think the downside is 10 orders of magnitude larger than
| this benefit.
|
| I also think there are more people who'd call this usage a
| downside than a benefit.
| greg_V wrote:
| The number one use case for this will be to beat KYC checks,
| which means KYC procedures will get more annoying and
| bothersome for everyone else!
| godelski wrote:
| I'm a researcher who's made one of the best face generators.
| I'd like to address your questions and discuss a larger more
| critical point.
|
| I too have ethical concerns. There are upsides though. It is a
| powerful tool for image and video editing (for swapping, you
| still need a generator on the backbone)[0]. It is a powerful
| tool for compression and upsampling (your generative model
| __is__ a compression of (a subset of) human faces, so you don't
| need to transmit the same data across the wire). It is easy to
| focus on the upsides and see the benefits. It is easy to not
| spend as much time and creative thinking directed at malicious
| usages (you're not intending to use or develop something for
| malicious acts, right?!). But there's two ways to determine
| malicious usages of a technology: 2) you emulate the thinking
| of a malicious actor, contemplating how they would use your
| tool, and 2) time.
|
| But I also do think application matters. I think this can get
| hairy when you get nuanced. Are all deepfakes that are done
| without consent of the person being impersonated unethical? I
| think at face (pun intended) value, this looks like an
| unambiguous no. But what about parody like Sassy Justice?[1].
| Intent here is not to deceive, and the deep fakes add to the
| absurdity of the characters, and thus the messages. Satire and
| parody itself doesn't work unless mimicry exists[2]. Certainly
| these comedic avenues are critical tools in democracy,
| challenging authority, and challenging mass logic failures[3]
| (which often happens specifically due to oversimplification and
| not thinking about the details or abuse).
|
| I want to make these points because I think things are post hoc
| far easier to dismiss than a priori. We're all argumentative
| nerds, and I think despite the fact that we constantly make
| this mistake, we can all recognize that cornering someone
| doesn't typically yield in surrender, but them fighting back
| harder (why you never win an argument on the internet, despite
| having all the facts and being correct). And since we're mostly
| builders (of something) here, we all need to take much more
| care. * _The simpler you rationalize something to be post hoc,
| the more difficult it will be to identify a priori.*_
|
| Even at the time, I had reservations when building what I made.
| But one thing I've found exceptionally difficult in ML research
| is that it is hard to convince the community that data is data.
| The structure of data may be different and that may mean we
| need more nuance in certain areas than others (which is
| exciting, as that's more research!), but at the end of it, data
| is data. But we get trapped in our common datasets to
| evaluate[4] and more and more, our research needs to be
| indistinguishable from a product (or at least a MVP). If we can
| make progress by moving away from Lena, I think we can make
| progress by moving away from faces AND by being more nuanced.
|
| I don't regret building what I built, but I do wish there was
| equal weighting to the part of my voice that speaks about
| nuance and care (it is specifically that voice that led to my
| successful outcomes too). The world is messy and chaotic. We
| (almost) all want to clean it up and make it better. But
| because of how far we've advanced, we need to recognize that
| doing good (or more good than harm) is becoming harder and
| harder. Because as you advance in any topic, the details matter
| more and more. We are biased towards simplicity and biased
| towards thinking we are doing only good[5], and we need to
| fight this part of ourselves. I think it is important to
| remember that a lie can be infinitely simple (most conspiracies
| are indistinguishable from "wizards did it"), but accuracy of a
| truth is bounded by complexity (and real truth, if such a thing
| exists, has extreme or infinite complexity).
|
| With that said, one of my greatest fears of AI, and what I
| think presents the largest danger, is that we outsource our
| thinking to these machines (especially doing so before they can
| actually think[6]). That is outsourcing one of the key
| ingredients into what defines us as humans. In the same way
| here, I think it is easy to get lost in the upsides and
| benefits. To build with the greatest intentions! But above all,
| we cannot outsource our humanity.
|
| Ethics is a challenging subject and it often doesn't help that
| we only get formal education through gen ed classes. But if
| you're in STEM, it is essential that you are also a
| philosopher, studying your meta topic. Don't need to publish
| there, but do think about. Even just over beers with your
| friends. Remember, it's not about being right -- such a thing
| doesn't exist --, it is about being less wrong[7]
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nxanN85O84
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/@SassyJustice
|
| [2]
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
|
| [3] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm
|
| [4] I do think face data can be helpful when evaluating models
| as our brains are quite adept at recognizing faces and even
| small imperfections. But this should make it all that much
| clearer that evaluation is __very__ hard.
|
| [5] I think it is better to frame tech (and science) like a
| coin. It has value. The good or evil question is based on how
| the coin is spent. Even more so how the same type of coins are
| predominantly spent. Both matter and the topic is coupled, but
| we also need to distinguish the variables.
|
| [6] Please don't nerdsplain to me how GPTs "reason". I've read
| the papers you're about to reply with. I recognize that others
| disagree, but I am a researcher in this field and my view isn't
| even an uncommon one. I'm happy to discuss, but telling me I'm
| wrong will go nowhere.
|
| [7] https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html
| goda90 wrote:
| How long until we see "anti-cheat"-like software to try to detect
| this stuff for video chatting?
| diggan wrote:
| I'm guessing that finding a technology to try to detect this
| would be over-engineering. I'd love to see a sample where the
| person with the swapped face passes their hand with spread
| fingers over their face, and see how it handles that.
| Raicuparta wrote:
| I've tried it, it currently does not handle that scenario
| well at all.
| warkdarrior wrote:
| Wait three months, it'll be fixed.
| radicality wrote:
| Perhaps we'll see it a requirement to use a closed platform
| like an iPhone where it would be much easier to attest that the
| feed is not tampered with.
|
| It's already a requirement sometimes to take a video of your
| face from multiple angles using your phone - some identity
| verification service forced me to do it. I imagine that stuff
| like this will evolve to check for hardware attestations more,
| or use info from depth/lidar sensors to verify video and other
| sensor data align.
| dpweb wrote:
| Facinating software although I hope the idea "we're gonna rely on
| people to be good humans and DO THE RIGHT THING" is quickly
| abandoned and instead there is just as robust development of
| detection software that goes along with newer and better deep
| fake tools.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| Detection is ultimately impossible. Anything you can detect can
| be explicitly evaded.
| exe34 wrote:
| I dream of a world where a web of trust signatures are taken
| seriously. A few hops should get you to a real human holding
| the camera who claims it's a real recording. If that person
| or someone along the way is regularly flagged as malicious by
| others that you trust, you can blacklist them.
| mhuffman wrote:
| I think the terminal solution to this, in the US and maybe
| the EU, will be putting identifying code/chips into all
| devices capable of connecting to the Internet that will tag
| all content (video, text, audio, images) in some way where
| browsers will have to legally change to interpret them. This
| will make everyone either unable to use the Internet or known
| to anyone that "needs to know".
| nope1000 wrote:
| Technically impressive but I fail to see a good use case for it
| that's not related to propaganda or scam and the website doesn't
| seem to list one either.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| If I had to dig way, way down to the bottom of the barrel for
| use cases, it would be _very_ funny if everyone showed up to a
| meeting wearing one of the attendee 's faces.
| nope1000 wrote:
| That would have been the dream of students during remote
| schooling times.
| stavros wrote:
| Don't they already?
| nwoli wrote:
| One legitimate one I could imagine is if people want to pursue
| a career in the adult film industry but without having to
| reveal their true face (not with a celebrity face of course)
| eltoxo wrote:
| I have been thinking about this comment and if it isn't a
| celebrity then just someone you know?
|
| If not someone you know then just a random stranger?
|
| Not that I can think of a better use case but it is telling
| if this is the best we can do.
| nwoli wrote:
| I just meant a synthetic human (a dalle/stylegan/stable
| diffusion face output).
| irq-1 wrote:
| Job interviews, bank loans, anywhere racism or
| discrimination exists (or might exist.)
| netsharc wrote:
| There's some sort of filter on Instagram (or maybe it is some
| deepfake tool) that replaces girls' eyes with a set of nice
| eyes, but it seems the tool only has that pair of eyes, so
| all the videos of girls with these eyes are so noticable. And
| so many "influencers" have this pair of eyes, it's
| depressing.
|
| It's even more amusing when one sees glitches like eyes
| appearing in front of a strand of hair...
| muixoozie wrote:
| Only things I can think of:
|
| - streamer goofing around.
|
| - Perhaps something like this could be used to map your facial
| expressions onto video game characters in real-time.
|
| - could take tictok style social media to the next level of
| absurdity. make me into a meme. Ghana says goodbye etc.
| skocznymroczny wrote:
| It's fun for goofing around. Imagine a conference call with
| your buddies and each one comes with a different deepfake. Kind
| of like a costume party but on camera.
| luzojeda wrote:
| I don't think that compensates all the bad uses it will
| probably have.
| bsenftner wrote:
| Oh those without the imagination: this is gold marketing for
| makeup and fashion advertising companies. The "good use" is the
| multi-billion dollar makeup and fashion industry. People will
| submit their own images so they can see themselves randomly
| appear in their own media feeds in the latest fashions. This is
| a no brainer for those with the connections to fashion
| marketing.
| rebeccaskinner wrote:
| Just a few off the top of my head:
|
| Movies and TV: - As an alternative to motion
| capture for animation - As an alternative to existing de-
| aging CGI when you want to flash back to a younger version of a
| character (especially for cases where newer sequels are being
| made for much older movies) - As an easy way to get some
| additional footage if an actor no longer looks the part
|
| In a professional setting: - Conduct job
| interviews were interviewees faces are mapped to the faces of a
| few pre-defined images, to reduce a major source of implicit
| bias in interviewing - Get some footage of yourself when
| you're looking your best, with great lighting, and use that
| rather than being off-camera if you're joining a meeting when
| you don't look great - Create virtual spokespeople to
| represent your company in marketing, and allow that person to
| be played by different actors
|
| News and Politics: - An alternative to blurred
| or blocked out faces for people giving interviews or whistle
| blowing - Allow people to testify in court (virtually)
| without revealing their identity and risking retaliation
| realce wrote:
| None of these uses - most of which benefit a slim percentage
| of society or are needlessly complicated by this technology -
| outweigh the severe downsides to society. It's the apex of
| foolishness to act glibly about this.
|
| This all ends extremely badly.
| mhuffman wrote:
| The counterpoint is that some or all of these could make
| money and not enough people care how it ends if money is
| being made. I suspect it will have to take a terrorist plot
| using generative AI or something similarly significant to
| shut the door and even then it will be disallowed by us
| commoners, not the big four or five AI companies and not to
| the rest of the world.
| rebeccaskinner wrote:
| Whether the upsides outweigh the downsides or not is a
| different discussion. My point is that there are plenty of
| ways someone might use this technology. If you do think
| that this technology is a net negative to society and
| should be controlled or prohibited, then it's still
| important to understand the potential ways someone might
| want to apply it so that you can be prepared to make your
| argument.
|
| Personally, I have mixed feelings. I think that most of the
| outcomes we're most concerned about are going to happen one
| way or another, and developing in public or even
| commoditization of access to it is going to be a net
| reduction in harm over locking it up and pretending it
| doesn't exist while allowing people (and nations) with the
| resources to run large models in secret to develop and use
| the technology against people who are ignorant of what's
| possible.
| doctorhandshake wrote:
| This makes me think there could be use for a very very (very)
| easy-to-use tool that allows two parties to choose and store a
| secret (verbally pronounceable) passphrase known only to the two
| of them, for use in situations in which it might be necessary to
| 'sign' a video chat or audio conversation in which one party's
| identity might be in doubt.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _a very very (very) easy-to-use tool that allows two parties to
| choose and store a secret (verbally pronounceable) passphrase
| known only to the two of them_
|
| So, quite literally, a "password" in its original pre-internet
| meaning.
| doctorhandshake wrote:
| Haha yes. Maybe a secret knock?
| 101008 wrote:
| I always liked that idea (not original, I know) in the Harry
| Potter books (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, more
| specifically), where two people ask a private question they
| should only know to be sure they are not being impersonated.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| I've seen people try and share such a "password" verbally on a
| video call. With recording and live transcribing on. From free-
| tier extensions with wobbly privacy policies.
|
| This won't work.
|
| I've resorted to using OTP apps with family and coworkers.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| So you force your parents/kids/aunts/etc to give you a one
| time code every time they want to talk to you?
|
| That seems extremely clunky and impersonal and I couldn't
| imagine anyone in my family willingly agreeing to do it.
| haxiomic wrote:
| I miss the recent past where new tech felt exciting and inspiring
| but for the last few years new developments are often coupled
| with an anxiety for the new harms possible and often unclear
| benefits. I wonder how much is 'inevitable', at large enough
| scale we will always exploring new possibility spaces as they
| become available and how much is our choosing - we put resources
| to build these things in full awareness because we think they
| bring value over focusing on other things. I realise though it is
| useful for society to develop understanding and defences for
| these things early
|
| I've notice I've steadily become more ashamed to be associated
| with tech. I'm still processing how to react to this and what to
| choose to work on in response
|
| Am I in a bubble? Do you share similar feelings or are yours
| quite different? I am very curious
| diggan wrote:
| > I've notice I've steadily become more ashamed to be
| associated with tech
|
| Are you actively contributing to these areas you feel ashamed
| about? If not, you shouldn't really feel ashamed about what
| other people chose to work on, even if both of you work "in
| tech".
|
| I'm sure not all people working on medical research agrees with
| what all other researchers are working on, but you cannot
| really control what others are working on, so why feel ashamed
| over what others are working on?
| reaperducer wrote:
| _you shouldn 't really feel ashamed about what other people
| chose to work on, even if both of you work "in tech"._
|
| Why not? Someone who builds boxes that hold bombs can be
| ashamed of being in the munitions industry, even if they
| don't make the actual bombs.
| diggan wrote:
| Right, but if you're in general "manufacturing", there
| isn't much point of feeling ashamed about some parts of the
| industry focusing on munitions manufacturing.
| 0xf00ff00f wrote:
| I feel the same way. I can't think of a single legitimate use
| case for this. I wish all those GPU teraflops were being used
| for something else.
| chillingeffect wrote:
| Definitely with you. It used to be a higher entry point so a
| certain passion was necessary. And it was less about money and
| more about sharing info and joy. Now networking tech has been
| "democratized", it's another medium where the usual human pain
| and greed play out. High school again, but with real
| consequences on peoples' lives.
| Willingham wrote:
| Just need to add voice augmentation and every grandma and grandpa
| in the world will have their bank accounts cleaned out! Better go
| warn mine now! XD
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Just need to add voice augmentation and every grandma and
| grandpa in the world will have their bank accounts cleaned
| out!_
|
| Only if by "grandma" you mean "Millennial" and by "grandpa" you
| mean "Gen Z." Your ageism doesn't jibe with reality:
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/data-visualizations/data-spo...
| hungie wrote:
| I think you should read that again. It's clear that different
| age groups fall for different scams and have different
| impacts from them.
|
| Grandparents absolutely fall for some scams at
| disproportionate rates. And are less likely to be able to
| recover. (A 19 year old who loses everything has many more
| productive years to recover than a 72 year old.)
|
| Also, humorously, millennials _are_ starting to become
| grandma and grandpa. Elder millennials are in their mid 40s.
| It 's young, but not impossible for them to be grandparents
| now.
| curiousgal wrote:
| In the world? You'd be surprised by how many grandmas out there
| that don't have bank accounts or access to the Internet...
| XorNot wrote:
| A practical use of this would be to animate your face onto a CGI
| model which was independently posed for the purposes of video
| meetings - which is something I've always wanted.
|
| Let me separate my face, body and words and craft the experience.
| greeniskool wrote:
| Face tracking has existed for years now. I frankly don't see
| what's different between what you described and FaceRig.
| XorNot wrote:
| You're missing the point: I want a fake version of myself.
|
| I want a model which is made photoreal with my own image, so
| it can be given a voice in real time with my words, but a
| filtered version of my facial expression and pose.
|
| So how I look and act is essentially scriptable.
| radicality wrote:
| I think that's already happening. You can buy a trained
| model of someone to do 24/7 live-streaming peddling
| products, or even black-mirror-esque bringing back deceased
| ones. Company in china selling this is Silicon
| Intelligence.
|
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/19/1079832/chinese
| -...
|
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/05/07/1092116/deepfak
| e...
| gunalx wrote:
| Strit up look into vtubing, and it's already done.
| https://inochi2d.com/
| illnewsthat wrote:
| What's the technical difference in how this works vs. previous
| face swapping tech (like Snapchat filters)?
| zug_zug wrote:
| Technologically seems cool, and the first use that pops into mind
| is "wouldn't this be funny to prank my friend?"
|
| But maybe no, it wouldn't. Maybe it'd be deeply disconcerting. We
| have very strong norms around honesty as a society, and maybe
| crossing them in video just for a joke is comparably crass to
| giving somebody a fake winning lottery ticket.
| hackernewds wrote:
| where are all these "wow impressive" comments coming from?
| clicking "Get Started" dumps you into a loop of landing on the
| home page
| jakepage91 wrote:
| the README.md seems straightforward enough.
| robxorb wrote:
| Where is the repo? Stuck in the landing page loop here and no
| github link I could find.
| stavros wrote:
| Yeah all of the page's links just go to the same page,
| except the "experience live cam" link at the top. That goes
| to this:
|
| https://github.com/hacksider/Deep-Live-Cam
|
| Took me multiple minutes to find too.
| declan_roberts wrote:
| "Built-in checks prevent processing of inappropriate content,
| ensuring legal and ethical use."
|
| A software engineer says to himself, if only I could keep these
| guns from jumping off the table and shooting people.
| FredPret wrote:
| I think AI + deepfakes will increase the value pressure on in-
| person interactions - ie, the only time when you can (for now)
| believe your eyes and ears.
|
| I wonder how politics can be transacted in such an environment.
| Old-timey first-past-the-post might be the optimal solution if
| you can't trust anything from out of earshot.
| carapace wrote:
| > I wonder how politics can be transacted in such an
| environment.
|
| Codes and seals predate computers (by quite a bit.)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_(cryptography)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_(emblem)
| FredPret wrote:
| Those are relevant to the workings of government.
|
| The process of politicians debating and getting elected is
| going to have to be much more local. Just look at how easy it
| is to spread misinformation now.
| carapace wrote:
| My hope is that we (as a global society) re-learn to value
| honor and honesty.
|
| > The process of politicians debating and getting elected
| is going to have to be much more local.
|
| I'm no expert on government but that seems like it would be
| a good thing. IMO the best but most expensive form of
| government is Quaker-style Consensus Decision Making:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker_decision-making
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
| shireboy wrote:
| In person interactions like this CIA mask expert tricking a US
| president? https://spyscape.com/article/master-of-disguise-how-
| the-cias...
| jaynetics wrote:
| This is a nice article, but I don't think it works as a
| counter argument to GP. Deep fake shenanigans are way more
| scalable and thus more likely to affect average people than
| these elite spy techniques.
| Stagnant wrote:
| Looks like this project is a fork of the discontinued roop[0]
| with primarily some UI improvements. One of roop's main
| developers has been working on facefusion[1] for the past year
| and it produces by far the most convincing results from the ones
| i've seen and it also supports real time webcam face swapping.
|
| 0: https://github.com/s0md3v/roop/
|
| 1: https://github.com/facefusion/facefusion
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Is there a legitimate usecase for this?
|
| Like when they were brainstorming this as a product, what was the
| persona/vertical they were targeting?
| freeone3000 wrote:
| The future of v-tubers is here
| RafelMri wrote:
| Interesting... This project is built upon "GFPGAN v1.4"
| (https://github.com/TencentARC/GFPGAN) and "FaceSwap Extension -
| Automatic 1111 - Proof of Concept"
| (https://github.com/revolverocelot1/-webui-faceswap-unlocked).
| The GFPGAN project is grounded on its own in the paper "GFP-GAN:
| Towards Real-World Blind Face Restoration with Generative Facial
| Prior" by Wang et al. (https://xinntao.github.io/projects/gfpgan)
| ed wrote:
| This is not a new face swapping technique, it's a wrapper
| around inswapper (aka InstantID, an IP adapter):
| https://github.com/haofanwang/inswapper
|
| Relevant source https://github.com/hacksider/Deep-Live-
| Cam/blob/main/modules...
| chefandy wrote:
| Well, this will make for some "interesting" viral campaign
| fodder.
| araes wrote:
| Huh. Thought politics was dead with VASA-1 [1], EMO [2], and
| Animate / Outfit anyone [3], so we could clothe people in
| anything, animate them any way we want, put them anywhere, and
| have them say anything to the public. "Thoughts and prayers
| victims..."
|
| However, this really nails that pretty dead itself. Wonder if I
| can:
|
| - Sit at home in pajamas.
|
| - Change my face to Sec. of Def. Lloyd Austin.
|
| - Put myself in a nice suit from TV
|
| - Call the White House with autotune voice pretending to be going
| in for surgery yet again because of life threatening
| complications
|
| - Send the entire military into conniptions (maybe mention some
| dangerous news I need to warn them about before the emergency
| rush surgery starts)
|
| Edit: This [4] might be an Animate / Outfit anyone image... It's
| difficult to tell. Even with huge amounts of experience, the
| quality has become too elevated, too quick to check 1000's of
| depressing murder images for fakes because it might be a BS heart
| string story. All stories on the WWW are now, "that might be
| fake, unless I can personally check." Al-arabiya upvoted casinos
| and lotteries for muslims recently. [5] "they all might be fake."
|
| [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/vasa-1/
|
| [2] https://humanaigc.github.io/emote-portrait-alive/
|
| [3] https://humanaigc.github.io/animate-anyone/
|
| [4]
| https://www.reuters.com/resizer/v2/https%3A%2F%2Fcloudfront-...
|
| [5] https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2024/07/29/uae-
| grant...
| xnx wrote:
| https://github.com/C0untFloyd/roop-unleashed does this for free
| on your own computer
| petesergeant wrote:
| So does this, the landing page is a wrapper for
| https://github.com/hacksider/Deep-Live-Cam
| hankchinaski wrote:
| Now the question is, what is the use case that does not entail
| misinformation or personal amusement?
| bufferoverflow wrote:
| Cam girls will get some competition from guys.
| jader201 wrote:
| I feel like this is one step closer to the Black Mirror episode
| where the grieving widow orders an AI version of her late
| husband.
|
| And I don't say this with excitement.
| paul7986 wrote:
| Neil DeGrasse Tyson says it best the Internet will die because of
| this type of technology
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/AxM2XTwaaUA
|
| AI will kill the Internet we know today and the new one im
| guessing you will have to have a Internet license attached to
| your identity which is backed by your internet reputation which
| you always want to keep it high for veracity/validity! You can
| still post anonymously but it wont hold as much weight compared
| to you posting using your verified Internet identity. This idea
| of mine i posted good number of times here and it gets downvoted
| but with the IRS in bed with ID.Me (elon musk is involved with
| them in some capacity) you can see what i mention with ID.me and
| the IRS being a small step in this direction. Otherwise no one
| uses the Internet (zero trust of it) .. it dies and we go back to
| reading books and meeting in person (doesnt sound all that bad
| yet ive never read a book before).
| mikkom wrote:
| This is getting scary to be honest
|
| And this is the worst quality it will ever be. In the future it
| will be impossible to know who we are talking with online.
| kshri24 wrote:
| I am not at all comfortable with this. Even though it is an
| amazing demo I feel the release of this tool could not have been
| more ill-timed. It has all the potential of wrecking US elections
| this year. I don't really know what the optimal release time
| should have been but I don't see how this can be used for good at
| all. And I am still just considering implications of this
| restricted to elections. I am not even going to think about what
| it would mean to child porn, terrorism and even entire
| assassinations orchestrated to destabilize a Government leading
| to Civil/World Wars. Lots of things can go wrong with this tech.
| mc32 wrote:
| Another huge issue is fraud. People impersonating others for
| financial fraud, etc.
|
| Question is, is it stoppable? Doubt anyone thinks it can be
| stopped unless you get into fascistic/communistic/authoritarian
| tactics of arresting people for just using it at all.
| cdrini wrote:
| It's really getting to the point where multimedia online
| shouldn't be trusted unless it's from a reputable source and
| cross verified.
|
| I wonder, is there a universe where maybe cameras are updated to
| add some sort of digital signature to videos/photos to indicate
| they are real and haven't been tampered with? Is that
| feasible/possible? I'm not skilled with cryptography stuff to
| know, but if we can digital sign documents with some amount of
| faith...
|
| I've heard folks mention trying to tag AI photos/videos, but it
| seems like tagging non-AI photos/videos is more feasible?
| bravoetch wrote:
| The idea of a signed and verified stream has only been used to
| enforce old-school distribution rights. Because of this, the
| implementations are clunky and have zero incentive for consumer
| adoption. Why buy your own handcuffs?
| cdrini wrote:
| The incentive is to prove that the video is not AI generated.
| Useful for consumers, news organisations, camera
| manufacturers, etc. The idea would be you can still copy the
| file/change the video, but the signature will no longer be
| valid. It's not mean to be restrictive like handcuffs/DRM.
| sylware wrote:
| That will be funny once those neural nets can be infered on a
| normal person beefy workstation (or a few of them). Just thei
| "ethical" goes down the drain.
|
| It is already ez to run text troll AIs on normal workstations...
| so...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-10 23:00 UTC)