comment: >
  
  How would you know you've seen a deep fake you couldn't spot ?
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