comment: >
  
  What, you found my Onlyfans? Nah those are just deepfakes hahaha
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  One of the big problems is eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable and the human mind is capable of huge leaps of imaginary faith. >
  
  Came here to say this, it is kinda scary but our memories are constantly beeing rewritten and is quite unreliable >
  
  No they're not, I think you're misremembering that. >
  
  Stop G A S L I G H T I N G me!! >
  
  No one’s gaslighting you, Doug. You’ve been this way since high school >
  
  Gaslighting isn't real, you made that up because you're crazy. >
  
  Gaslighting is an actual thing. The real Canrex would know that. >
  
  You see, Greg, gaslighting wasn't ever in this thread... But did you know cats have nipples? >
  
  Just wait till robots can look like humans and you can't tell them apart. One good lookalike robot and you'll be setup for crimes and murders you didn't do >
  
  Why would you think they'd need a robot to pin whatever they want on you? >
  
  I more mean the op was saying you have to be there to believe it was real... Now you can also be there and still not know if it was real. Super exciting. >
  
  I would say in this instance it's slightly different. Unlike with doctored footage, whatever the robot does still actually happened. It's just a matter of determining if the perpetrator was real or not. >
  
  What is real? >
  
  That which is irreplaceable >
  
  Witness testimony can be unreliable and malleable so I think the only answer is not be certain of anything >
  
  TIL I’ve been living the answer for 60 years! >
  
  Or have you? >
  
  The only think I'm totally certain of is I would never trust a personal eye witness account for anything important. >
  
  Laughs in religion. >
  
  "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past," repeated Winston obediently. "Who controls the present controls the past," said O'Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. 'Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?"
  "The frightening thing, he reflected for the ten thousandth time as he forced his shoulders painfully backward (with hands on hips, they were gyrating their bodies from the waist, an exercise that was supposed to be good for the back muscles) -- the frightening thing was that it might all be true. If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened -- that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?" >
  
  Eye witness reports are some of the least relatable ways to get information. Human memory is actually way worse than most people think. >
  
  On top of that, every thing we witness could be imagination. There is nothing we can be sure of.
  Neither was there before deep fakes existed. >
  
  Thanks for reminding me to book series (written by Duncan Shelley in Hungarian: Az elme gyilkosai) i read a decade ago and had some really deep conversations about with my uncle. >
  
  Blessed time to not be an "influencer". There aren't hours and hours of HD video footage and audio tracks of me to train AI with.
  Video has a bit to go, but audio is CRAZY accurate.  RIP to all those podcasters who never show their face, so spoofing their voice is very hard to deny.
  On the upside, this might end cancel culture, as you can't be sure what is real or not, but on the downside it will allow people to say really shitty things and blame it on AI. >
  
  "Cancel culture" is such a dumb ass phrase. Its called consequences. Sometimes when people say, or do, shitty things, they are ostracized, and have to pay the price for their actions. This isn't a new development in human behavior. We've been "canceling" assholes since the dawn of humanity. >
  
  How about all the "assholes" that have been cancelled just to come out later with proof that they didn't do any of the stuff they were accused of? But then it was too late, their reputation was already ruined? >
  
  Yeah, that's happened all through out history too. This isn't some new kind of behavior in human society. Sometimes people are wrongly accused of bad stuff, and sometimes they actually did the thing they're accused of. When you do something wrong, and are held accountable, that's just life. Its not "cancel culture". >
  
  
  When you do something wrong, and are held accountable, that's just life. Its not "cancel culture".
  
  Are you reading my comment? Many people get cancelled without doing anything wrong. They are cancelled because people blindly believe things without proof. This is a culture, and you can almost call it a cancel culture.
  Just because you don't want to call it what the new terminology is for it, doesn't mean it's not cancel culture. Language changes and evolves. >
  
  I literally responded "sometimes people are wrongly accused"
  Did YOU read what I wrote? 
  Because I don't think it's too hard to understand. Sometimes people get accused of doing something wrong they didn't do. It sucks. But it's not like it's some new development or something. 
  And when people do ACTUALLY do something wrong, they deserve to be ostracized, and called out. 
  That's how life works. 
  Consequences and repercussions. 
  It's not "cancel culture". >
  
  So what do you call people who were cancelled, didn't actually do anything wrong, but their reputation never recovered because people don't care about positive news, only negative? >
  
  Unfortunate. >
  
  This is the world you get for filling out captcha’s on the internet for 20 years. >
  
  Photo manipulation has been around since the start of photography. Photoshop has been around since 1987. What deepfakes might do is create more proof that photo and video evidence alone is not enough to be certain. >
  
  Nah it’s not the same. Sure you can edit a picture but a picture is such limited information and photoshop is limited. Super different to a video of someone perfectly fakes with their face and voice on it that 99% of people can’t distinguish the difference. >
  
  None of that is new. It's just more accessible. Body double, voice actors, look alikes all supported with video and audio editing have been around for ages just look at Hollywood. The only difference is now it's faster and cheaper to do. >
  
  Deepfakes are also taking us to a time where a judge would decide by a flip of a coin because the court will not be able to rely on video/audio recordings >
  
  You know that digital forensics are a thing, right? There are tools to tell if audio/image files are authentic or stitched together/modified. >
  
  So far... 
  If criminal activities can be performed using deepfakes, you can bet the criminals will make huge efforts their deepfakes will be bulletproof.
  A good tip for investing is to look at criminal activities.. drugs embraced crypto from the beginning, porn used crypto today and will use deepfakes more and more >
  
  I just read this from a guy on reddit so take it with a grain of salt but he basically said its waaaay easier to make an ai that detects fake or tempered with images than to make an ai that actually creates those images.
  The ai creating deepfakes would have to be 100% perfect while the one detecting fakes would only need to find an error >
  
  But heres the caveat: you just re-train the AI on the AI-detector.
  It's like PED tests.  Its always easier to stay one step ahead of detection.  Add a new functional group on the molecule that only changes it enough so it isn't detected as the same compound but still has the same effect.
  A lot of AI detectors work by using tricks, tricks that currently work because there isn't much interest yet in bypassing them.  The tricks they use are search for common phrases used by specific AI models, checking sentence length variation, etc.  Nothing really that sophisticated.  And you can even ASK an AI to write something that isn't so easily detectable.  Surprisingly works quite well. >
  
  I used to love the saying "Never believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see."  Even 15 years ago, the "half of what you see" part was crumbling.  Now?  ugh. >
  
  Lol deepfakes aren’t the ones who did that, haven’t u seen how many people prefer anecdotal evidence over empirical data nowadays? Especially after covid hit? >
  
  
  many people prefer anecdotal evidence over empirical data 
  
  This fits my preconceptions. 
  It’s canon now. >
  
  This is wrong. As technology gets better at faking stuff, it at the same time gets better at spotting it. We can safely say if a picture was photoshopped. Digital forensics can easily tell a deepfake from a real video. It's the combination of different digital images. There's software that can tell if there are multiple pictures stitched together in one frame, which is what a deepfake is. >
  
  You have a point but you have left out basically the entire population. When we see images on Social Media we don’t take them for verification before we choose to believe them. Deepfakes if not stopped, will have real consequences on our perception of reality. >
  
  Even if social media platforms automatically flagged deepfakes and other altered content
  Even if viral deepfakes were disproven by other computer analysis
  Even if you held it up and showed people that the fake video of a public figure doing something supposedly shocking isn't real
  They would still believe it, because they choose to. Because they live in an alternative reality that conforms to all of their preconceived biases. >
  
  One aspect of this that I think is especially interesting (and uniquely worrying): even if eyewitness testimony becomes the only reliable method of verifying whether an event took place--itself concerning, given how unreliable eyewitness testimony is--we still won't be able to trust that the testimony itself is real.
  To be very clear: I'm not just saying that we won't be able to trust that the testimony is true, but that the testimony is even real. i.e. if you read a news report stating that a dozen people witnessed a murder, even if it contains video/audio interviews of the witnesses describing what they saw, you will have no way of knowing whether those witnesses even exist.
  Like the post title says, it really will be a matter of only believing events that we personally witnessed. >
  
  Reflections on Trusting Trust moment, except instead of computer programs it's for the entire reality. >
  
  If you understood how memory and perception works you'd know that you can't trust what you think you've witnessed. >
  
  I agree, actually. But most people are certain of the accuracy of their memories of important events, even if they probably shouldn't be. >
  
  Vocal emulation counts as deepfake, doesn't it? >
  
  So you should always scrutinize literally everything you see online anyways. It is insanely easy to twist a viewpoint to make it seem like someone is in the wrong by editing or lying. 
  There was a video a while back of some young punk at someone's door, trying to break it down. An old man comes out and just fills this kid full of lead killing him. 
  Everyone applauds the old frail man because this young punk is clearly an intruder. Except you find out the context that the old man was his grandfather and had been assaulting and harassing them for years. The old dude beat the mother constantly and the young kid had had enough. Should he have attacked the old dudes door? Obviously not. But with context the lines of right and wrong get seriously blurred. 
  Perhaps not knowing if a video is real or not due to AI technology will force us to question all content we see, and not take it at blind faith. >
  
  I'm pretty sure that in the next year or so, big tech giants will incorporate AI detecting AI in their software. Like you go to a website saying that a politician did X thing, the AI will tell you that this news seem to have been created by AI >
  
  It has also been suggested that AI tech will get to the point even AI won't know the difference. That day will eventually come, and I would bet sooner than you know. It would be a good idea to assume that day has arrived. Better to assume that then be willfully ignorant. >
  
  It's amazing how computers and the internet are simultaneously driving both skepticism and superstition. >
  
  Been having this concern for a few years now, when I first heard of deepfake stuff >
  
  You mean a time when people were, in general, far more religious than they are now? >
  
  I don't know what your point is. >
  
  Photographs are a terrible guide to truth anyway. They only capture surface detail in one flashframe of time. And they can already be edited heavily. >
  
  Memory is incredibly unreliable, so we can't even tell if anything ever happened. >
  
  
  Or are documented by reputable news sources. Professional journalism matters. >
  
  Cell phones and cameras need to digitally sign their image files. It would help immensely. >
  
  If the AI can create a photo out of nothing, I don't think it will be hard to create a digital signature >
  
  What you're saying isn't possible. If someone can forge a digital file signature then the computing world as a whole is turbo-fucked. I'm not talking about a little signature in the bottom corner. >
  
  Just wait till right wing politicians start screaming deep fake and their base eats it up. 
  2024, calling it. >
  
  Finally a new shower thought! New to me. Most are just recycled and overused on every platform >
  
  I'm surprised to hear that no one has posted this before tbh. >
  
  If eye witness testimony is acceptable, so would the testimony of the person who took the video themselves. They could testify that they did not manipulate the video. Then it would be up to the jury whether they believed them or not. >
  
  That’s always been the case. You can only be certain of what you witness directly in your reality, all else is inference and imagination. >
  
  We may have to go back to using film because it provides a more reliable and tamper proof record of reality. >
  
  What deepfakes are you talking about. Has there been any that did any real damage? And when I say real I mean like a deep fake of the president declaring war on Canada or something. Not a celebrity telling you to buy stock in acme on Facebook. >
  
  Or your face being used in sexual content without your consent.
  That's pretty horrific >
  
  As if people haven’t been photoshopping faces onto bodies for decades as is. >
  
  The Native Americans thought a photo would capture your soul. What is there to trust? Photos? Not a chance ever. >
  
  I’ve literally never seen a deepfake that I couldn’t distinguish from reality. But please Somebody challenge me with a tough example >
  
  How would you know you've seen a deep fake you couldn't spot ? >
  
  This just isn’t true. We have programs that can decipher edited videos. AI humans are still in the uncanny valley. I mean look at some they don’t look fully human. And at the end of the day the government, actors, and anyone that has stuff to hide has been doing this type of shit irl with makeup up and other means. We have always been in this state of uncertainty you can even experience something and swear that it’s happened and it’s true and you could be wrong. Because humans are easily fooled and think about most thing emotionally. You can’t even tell all the time if humans around you are lying to your face. Only one Spirit I trust and that Jesus! Bro 95 % of the stuff that is on social media, in the news, or told to use by our “leaders” are just blatant lies and distractions used to force and coerce us into thinking the way they want. This reality is a lie. And I know how conspiracy theory this sounds, but do some research into Biblical truth and ancient history vs what we are told in The Bible and what we see in this world. And it all matches up and you can start to see the lies. From a former atheist. This world is demonic af, lies are everywhere. If y’all read this 2 things I wish you would take from this is first Know God, research Biblical history from both sides of the argument. And just try to form a relationship with God! It’s so worth it, again; former hard atheist. Second have watchful eyes in this world many lies are around. 
  Bless up to all of you and have a wonderful day! >
  
  Given the recent debacle with George Santos, I wonder how long it will be before an entirely computer generated person is elected to high office.
  Sadly, it won’t be a killer AI bent on global domination and wiping out humanity, as most likely a bot run by some MQGA donut. >
  
  Do you know what photoshop is? Or photo manipulation I general? Because we have had the technology to mess with photos as long as photos have existed. >
  
  Prior to Photoshop, convincing-looking image manipulation was generally limited to removing content from photos rather than creating new content from whole cloth. After Photoshop we had video technology and audio recording. >
  
  Just wait until we all have a Neuralink that rewrites your memories. >
  
  It's been that way. You can take an image and make it look like 3 different things. You can film something to make it look like more than it is. They should teach propaganda in schools. >
  
  Good post to raise the question? How is it so hard for so many people ? If I see or hear a deepfake I instantly hear it. Especially video. Its INSTANTLY visible just by looking for small cues. 
  Maybe it‘s cause I am autistic and hear or decipher stuff differently. I don‘t get the paranoia YET. It will get hard but today or in tje past it is a non-issue. >
  
  If I show a screenshot from gtaV to my 86 year old grandma she wouldn’t know it wasn’t real. Believe me I tried. >
  
  Ask three people to recount something they all saw together a week ago and you’ll get three different stories. Truth is actually dead >
  
  People seem to forget photoshop has existed for decades at this point. Hell, Stalin was removing people from images back a century ago >
  
  ...but at least it will be the end of certain 'influencers' and 'content creators' (looking at you OF). All you need is a face image and you can make them do anything!!! >
  
  It's easier if you have a baseline skeletory movement to deepfake over, like a greensuit kinda thing.
  I could definitely seeing OFers use deepfake overlays to give themselves a hot body & different face to make money and technically not be naked/known on the internet. >
  
  Have a watch of the TV show 'the capture' if you'd like to become really paranoid. >
  
  Let the metaverse and chips in the brain age start, then we'll talk. >
  
  Not disagreeing one bit, I think some people have always thought that way. >
  
  As if human memories are any better ... I don't trust myself to remember anything remotely important with any degree of accuracy. Assuming I did remember that there was something, there's a significant chance that I would either draw a blank on what it was, or fuck up the details by filling in the gaps with made-up junk in attempts to recall it. So deepfakes may make things harder, but it's not like thing weren't already ambiguous and unreliable to begin with. >
  
  The same goes for a lot of information. Now that Google and social media are silencing certain things because they're being asked to by the governments, it becomes hard to know the truth. >
  
  Except eyewitness accounts are the literal worst.  Meaning it’s hard to trust anything at all. >
  
  And since the human brain sucks ass, you can't even trust your memories of what you witnessed. >
  
  That brief period of sureness when seeing a picture taken because it was too difficult and expensive to photoshop it was the good times. Now we lie to eachother every day. Good job humanity. >
  
  We will develop security measures against them too. Think about the web itself. We started by just sending information across with no inherent protection. Then we learned how dangerous that is. So we can up with solutions. 
  Think about VPNs, SSL, HTTPS, etc. they all serve alleviate unintended consequences of our technological progress. 
  Deepfake is an unintended consequence of AI  and we will deal that too. >
  
  As with the fake news labels etc, Tech companies will have to take on the responsibility of labeling deepfakes at some point >
  
  Fortunately, it'll be some time before deepfakes can reliably and perfectly trick other ai designed to spot deepfakes. The issue is that it doesn't matter if something is verafiably faked, because only a fraction of people that see the video will see the follow up saying that it's fake. Sure it won't trick the courts, but it will trick public opinion in a lot of cases. >
  
  My mom always said believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. >
  
  Maybe soon in the next few years, but honestly I’ve never seen a completely convincing deepfake. Zoom in on the video and it’s obvious. >
  
  This is terrifying to think about given how many people spend 90% of their time on the internet. Without proper oversight this could pose a huge problem to a multitude of things ranging from overall mental health to issues like revenge porn and scamming attempts.
  Imagine when scammers get access to this and can generate any picture they want to try to get you to send money to them. Either people are going to lose it not knowing if that's truly a nude or just a rendered image with your face on it and regardless of the answer that person will probably still feel mental anguish from having perceived nudes of themself spread across the internet or worse. >
  
  You guys ready for the first war started over a deep fake?
  Probably just a few weeks away from happening. >
  
  Bro, that never changed. It’s medias job to convince of what they want you to see. The real trick was convincing the world that ever changed at all >
  
  "I'll believe it when I see it with my very own eyes" is relevant again >
  
  nah,
  false memories are a thing >
  
  maybe this could be perpetuating the ignorancethe American agenda >
  
  We need the Last of Us virus test machine as an app for deep fakes >
  
  It’s not even deep fakes, there has been good fakes since the start. People are finally realizing how easy it is to make a decent enough fake to trick the average viewer. I could deep fake Abe Lincoln smoking a joint with snoop dog in like 15 minutes >
  
  AI is doing the exact same thing. You can't be certain someone you're conversing with is an actual person >
  
  My wife keeps trying to show me blurry videos of lights in the sky as proof of aliens.
  I'm like, "if they can do a giant candy crush ad over new jersey I'm pretty sure someone can do this with a drone they modified from Walmart." >
  
  Oh, we didn't need deep-fakes for that. The exact same piece of video can be played for two different groups of people with different accompanying information, and the two groups will disagree on what actually happened. Once you add in different editing choices, you can very quickly have a piece of video saying whatever you want it to say.
  Truth has always been subjective because we are so vulnerable to manipulation, and because we parse reality through our own cultures and value systems. It's insane how unreliable a witness to an actual event can be. You likely don't even accurately remember most of the events you think you do. >
  
  Whatever problem deepfakes create is solved with public key encryption.
  Don't want to be deepfaked? Digitally sign your actual message / video / podcast / national address / etc. >
  
  When you put it that way, this is good. Way too many people trust what they see online or on TV with equal certainty to having seen something with their own two eyes
  “Who are you gonna believe- your own eyes or me?!” >
  
  How was I just literally thinking this exact same thing, went to Reddit to post, and here it is? >
  
  This post got a lot of traction (it's actually my top-grossing post of all time right now...), so considering how many people have seen it, it was probably inevitable that someone would have had the same thought at the same time. >
  
  Until we get deepfake holograms and then you can't even trust things you witnessed. >
  
  I’m carving my stuff in rocks, learned from the past bros, that’s all that’ll be kicked up one day. >
  
  Photo history professor here - we teach students that almost immediately following the “invention” of photography in 1839 (that’s just when it was announced by  the French government) people started to realize that the medium could be easily manipulated to …er …bend? the truth. The entire history of photography is riddled with events that people perceived as being dishonestly misleading. Sometimes that was true, sometimes not. That’s why there’s a huge push among visual art instructors and institutions to try and raise the level of “visual literacy” in the world. If someone didn’t know that fiction could come from a writer, they too might believe every word of Animorphs (or at least someone would). >
  
  I see what you are saying, and I agree.   I learned this while working in Denali when a raft capsized and people died. Pure accident. The newspaper article was full of incorrect information, which would lead anyone who read it to believe the people were basically killed via incompetence. That was pre 911, imagine how terrible it is now. ‘News entertainment’ at best.
  Also, I hate when people lie to make stories better. So when I’m telling one that could be sound far fetched I make sure to say, I saw this with my own eyes. Something like that. >
  
  Its going to get to a point when a deepfake will be produced, unless the individuals in it can afford to pay a company to prove its a deepfake, its going to be taken as real. >
  
  Not true. Using math and natural processes of computer code we can still tell what pictures have been edited by number of times they’re saved. >
  
  Yet memory is no friend of ours. Did you know that everyone you recall a memory & retell it you stray further from the actual memory? I learned this from my cognition class while getting my degree in psychology. 🤯 >
  
  Every time* >
  
  We have passwords. We can be certain that anyone who posts from a twitter account is actually that person. And if we stop trusting institutions like that, you can also prove things in a similar way with blockchain technology. >
  
  What are we going to do?  In a few years it's going to be impossible to tell the difference. >
  
  Yeah, just like the resurrection of Jesus and the talking snake giving the lady an apple! >
  
  You can’t even be sure if it with regular photography. Photographers’ choices of what to shoot, how to crop, etc. can also be deceptive. >
  
  In theory theres a thing called journalism where theres a trusted network of people that look into things so you know whats true. 
  If theres a problem with that its not from deepfakes >
  
  I was watching a movie that was dubbed to French yesterday and they'd deepfaked (or similar) the facial movements and mouth to match the French vocals. My goodness it was unnerving >
  
  It's almost like you should never believe anything based on a single piece of evidence.  Which has always been true.... Best anyone has ever been able to do is consider all angles and come to the best conclusion they can based on all the evidence. 
  Not even in science is anything 100%, we can get pretty close to certainty, but not all the way. Which is why new information is always being considered. >
  
  Ish. Deep fakes take effort and videos are totally detectable still. >
  
  "People say, believe half of what you see, Son and none of what you hear..." >
  
  Someone call up David Hume and tell him to bring back Empricism >
  
  Is anything even happening? How can you be sure? Everything could be a big lie! What is my life even? >
  
  Or for a third of the population, to the writings of a bunch of nomadic middle-Eastern goat-herders after being passed down via word of mouth for centuries. >
  
  Is there an example for how good they've gotten or easy search terms I can use? >
  
  Ye now we know for sire it happened twice, thats why we were so stuck up about it in the first place >
  
  Wait till neruolink. Some ghost and the shell shit right there. >
  
  Just wait until something like Neurolink exists. Then you might not even be able to trust the things you "personally" witnessed. >
  
  Photos have been unreliable for a long time before deepfake was invented. >
  
  Well someday even deepfake robot faces will make even that unbelievable. >
  
  Just join the military, now you won't believe shit until 10 minutes after you see it with your own eyes. >
  
  hard disagree. I still haven't seen a convincing deep fake. they all still look wrong. but we're damn close and I get your point. >
  
  It's like everyone thinks Photoshop never existed.
  There were naked pictures of Sandra Bullock floating around BBS's 25 years ago.
  I'm not saying it's right, but this is definitely not new. >
  
  no.
  even a photograph is:
  
  always a forced perspective
  2.can show things different or that doesnt even exist just due material inconsistencies or failing
  3.can be perceived or interpreted in m 1000000 diffrent ways according to the context alone, in which it is shown
  
  and our own perception is even less capable of reflecting reallity really good.
  there are way to much things humans cant even perceive.
  or things we just interpret totally diffrent. >
  
  
  are way to much things  
  
  Did you mean to say "too much"?
  Explanation: No explanation available.
  Total mistakes found: 1440
  ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes.
  ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions. 
  ^^Github >
  
  i hope we will just get to the point we trust only what we know which will make us trust each other and make us unite >
  
  Not really, Deep-fakes may have reduced the cost/skill required to create a fake, but that's about it. It has always been possible to fake photos & video, through tricks & other techniques. 
  The entire film industry is a testament to this >
  
  Ah yes. Deepfakes. The beginning of "video footage of things that didn't actually happen"
  Before deepfakes we all used to crowd in the cinema and watch the news. >
  
  Photoshop has existed for decades, airbrushing has existed almost as long as photography. >
  
  I feel as though this is a very concerning thing from a court based evidence system since evidence is no longer enough proof. >
  
  Dont believe everything you hear, and only half of what you see. 
  Or something like that. >
  
  While it’s getting substantially easier to fake video evidence, after effects (which is like photoshop but for videos) has been around for 2 decades now. People have been able to effectively tamper with video evidence (provided they learn the software) this whole time. Deepfakes adding lighting accurate face swapping to the mix makes it scarier, but the underlying video editing technology has been out for a while now. I don’t think it will change too much other than lead to more fucked up porn. As it stands today in early 2023, advanced video editing and a proper deepfake both require a very expensive computer and a high degree of technical artistic knowledge so I wouldn’t be worried. For the most part. The only people really capable of doing this well are massive movie companies and tv networks and it’s still pretty janky (Luke skywalker). Compare that to the much worse attempt from the Russian govt to deepfake Zelensky and you’ll see why this isn’t a problem, yet. Ai is advancing like crazy so who knows what’s coming in a couple years. >
  
  But does it give me plausible deniability? Hahaha >
  
  Cameras and video recording devices will start signing their video voles with a certificate and checksum.
  This way at least raw footage from devices can easily be vetted as true source.  
  Not sure how it would be done but my thought is something like a hidden watermark on select frames that is somehow embedded a la steganography and can be easily vetted with an application or block of code.