The Defense Department has Produced the First Tools for Catching Deepfakes

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,500
The DoD has developed the first forensic tools to detect deepfakes. The new tools use AI to detect the deepfakes that are usually created with AI or machine learning tools. One key discovery that helps make detection easier is that most deepfakes use still images of people and then overlay the original video with the deepfake. These still images don't blink and as a result the videos don't blink either. This is just one step in detecting the fakes and DARPA will continue to find more with their Media Forensics program. Other methods will explore strange head movements, odd eye color and other flaws in the deepfakes.

The arrival of these forensics tools may simply signal the beginning of an AI-powered arms race between video forgers and digital sleuths. A key problem, says Farid, is that machine-learning systems can be trained to outmaneuver forensics tools.
 
Virus makes got better when they had anti-virus scanners pushing innovation.
Should have the same effect on the deep fake programmers. Giving them better targets to fool should really improve there methods.
Next up deep fake video that blinks... next week deep fakes that project the right amount of spittle... next month who knows. lol
 
Detecting them doesn't matter, you can point out all the fakes you want. Some people will simply believe it because it makes them feel clever. It's all a conspiracy, it's all fake, the red-pilled see all the things that make them feel bad and know that these things are fake. The fake detectors are fake because the deep state.

Human society has engineered a nearly perfect idiot.
 
With Cyberpunk 2077 occasionally making gaming news, I think it's worth mentioning that in the Fourth Corporate War which was the end of the main story line for the tabletop rpg, Cyberpunk 2020, the greatest NPC hacker ("decker") Rache Bartmoss triggered code he had buried into what was effectively the BIOS for the global computer network which turned pretty much all the data stored on any computer connected to the net into semi-randomized deepfakes.
 
just because the video of a person is real.. does NOT imply that what they are saying isnt BS
 
We already have algorithms for detecting eyes in images, adding blinks wouldn't require more than a single frame blacking them out to fool humans. Add some compression artifacts to wallpaper over the edges and it'll be real enough to get the mob of your choice looking for pitchforks and torches. The aphorism "you can't cheat an honest man" exists for a reason.
 
And CNN spending an entire day reporting on the number of scoops of ice cream is good journalism? Your partisanship is showing.

And you're implying that anyone shitting on Fox News leans one way or the other. They're all shit, FOX, CNN, MSNBC the whole lot of them. They're not news, they're entertainment. The job of the media should be to report the news, not editorialize 24/7.
 
And you're implying that anyone shitting on Fox News leans one way or the other. They're all shit, FOX, CNN, MSNBC the whole lot of them. They're not news, they're entertainment. The job of the media should be to report the news, not editorialize 24/7.

I am and it's borne out by their marketing. Journalism has always been about editorializing since the day it was invented; it's just the layperson who thinks it's about the dispassionate reporting of facts.
 
deepfakes in videos with blinking and speaking already exist.
They're really obvious to spot right now... but the point is they are already headed down that path.
 
I am and it's borne out by their marketing. Journalism has always been about editorializing since the day it was invented; it's just the layperson who thinks it's about the dispassionate reporting of facts.

Well pardon me for being a "layperson", Mr. Passive Aggressive, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of conservatives out there that don't watch FOX and don't agree with it, just like there are liberals who do the same for CNN. Those lines you see in the sand don't exist.
 
And the game of cat and mouse game continues....
Took the words out of my mouth. Let's just hope they're able to keep up if not stay ahead. After all, it's only a matter of time before facial expressions and blinking eyes are added.
 
They don't have to be really obvious, it's just that the tools are in the hands of amateurs who are using them the way amateurs would use them. Take a random porn star and a random celebrity and make the worst fake celebrity porn ever. But this blink stuff, that's bullshit. What they're talking about is pre-Deepfake tech.

Deepfakes aren't about taking the face off Picture A and pasting it on Picture B. Deepfakes is about learning the faces of Person A and Person B, and then predicting what Person A's face would look like in place of Person B. It's like an error correction method, the error is that the face doesn't match, so it makes adjustments until it does, to the best of its ability (training level).

Deepfakes can blink. Deepfakes can spit. Deepfakes can take a money shot across the face.

[safe for work]

Yes, most of what it's being used for is novelty, but that's because it takes a lot of human effort and a lot of computational time even for basic stuff. Doing something more realistic just requires time, money, and commitment.
 
And CNN spending an entire day reporting on the number of scoops of ice cream is good journalism? Your partisanship is showing.

Anyone who thinks fox isn't partisan needs their head examined. Their won people admit they are trying to get Republicans elected; you can't get any more bias then that.

CNN *tries* to be neutral, but since conservatives have been attacking it for decades now, they've become a lot more confrontational in order to try and fight back some of the criticism levied against them.

MSNBC is clearly liberal in it's views, though it does call out Democratic BS (which is more then Fox has ever done).
 
Well pardon me for being a "layperson", Mr. Passive Aggressive, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of conservatives out there that don't watch FOX and don't agree with it, just like there are liberals who do the same for CNN. Those lines you see in the sand don't exist.

I'm Canadian, we own the rights to being passive aggressive and I stand by my statement. Newspapers were exclusively printed in the US for the purpose of changing public opinion. It's a large part of the time leading up to the Revolutionary War so calling you ignorant is justified.
 
I am and it's borne out by their marketing. Journalism has always been about editorializing since the day it was invented; it's just the layperson who thinks it's about the dispassionate reporting of facts.

The problem is facts need context, which leads to editorializing, which leads to opinion. Most "news" these days is just attempting to spin one set of facts to fit a specific narrative.
 
The problem is facts need context, which leads to editorializing, which leads to opinion. Most "news" these days is just attempting to spin one set of facts to fit a specific narrative.

I understand your point however the implication in the parent post's reference to Fox news was that they were the only ones doing it when clearly that is not the case.
 
I understand your point however the implication in the parent post's reference to Fox news was that they were the only ones doing it when clearly that is not the case.

True, but they're the most obvious example.
 
So DARPA is creating a tool for to detect something they created... This sounds a like how ship makers in the old times would create better aormor for a ship's hull and then turn around and create a gun to pierce it.
 
I'm Canadian, we own the rights to being passive aggressive and I stand by my statement. Newspapers were exclusively printed in the US for the purpose of changing public opinion. It's a large part of the time leading up to the Revolutionary War so calling you ignorant is justified.

Fair enough, you sanctimonious cunt.

So wow, newspapers were originally started to spread propaganda? WOW! What a revelation. What other bits of 200 year old nuggets of obvious shit do you know?

All I said was not every conservative watches FOX and not every liberal watches CNN and you denied that and lumped 300 million people into two groups with a mile wide line between them. Allow me to educate you: it doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:
I'm Canadian, we own the rights to being passive aggressive and I stand by my statement. Newspapers were exclusively printed in the US for the purpose of changing public opinion. It's a large part of the time leading up to the Revolutionary War so calling you ignorant is justified.

first, no, you dont own the rights to being passive agressive. Currently my ex wife owns those rights. dont believe me? go ask her yourself.

second, we are no longer living in the 1700s. now we all know that canada is a bit behind the times and there are tons of jokes about that to prove that point... but surely by now you have received the memo that time has marched on and as all things do with time- things have changed.


you may like to incorporate these helpful points into your world view in order to help you navigate through conversations with people that are apparently in a completely different timestream then you appear to be in. you may find it helpful :)
 
I hate those deep flakes at the bottom of the cereal bowl, especially when you have a small spoon. But they're pretty tasty once you are able to snag em.
 
Who needs tools? The tech always glitches out under certain frames to show the actor.
 
first, no, you dont own the rights to being passive agressive. Currently my ex wife owns those rights. dont believe me? go ask her yourself.

second, we are no longer living in the 1700s. now we all know that canada is a bit behind the times and there are tons of jokes about that to prove that point... but surely by now you have received the memo that time has marched on and as all things do with time- things have changed.


you may like to incorporate these helpful points into your world view in order to help you navigate through conversations with people that are apparently in a completely different timestream then you appear to be in. you may find it helpful :)

Really? You have your two parties, your wedge politics and the disgruntled masses versus the wealthy elite. Seems pretty much them same then as now.
 
Fair enough, you sanctimonious cunt.

So wow, newspapers were originally started to spread propaganda? WOW! What a revelation. What other bits of 200 year old nuggets of obvious shit do you know?

That thin skinned pricks, such as yourself, are easily irritated, for one.

All I said was not every conservative watches FOX and not every liberal watches CNN and you denied that and lumped 300 million people into two groups with a mile wide line between them. Allow me to educate you: it doesn't work that way.
 
Fair enough, you sanctimonious cunt.

So wow, newspapers were originally started to spread propaganda? WOW! What a revelation. What other bits of 200 year old nuggets of obvious shit do you know?

All I said was not every conservative watches FOX and not every liberal watches CNN and you denied that and lumped 300 million people into two groups with a mile wide line between them. Allow me to educate you: it doesn't work that way.

Is there anyone under the age of 65 that watches any mainstream news at all? Boomer? Boomer? Boomer?
 
Just read this whole thread and highly confused on what a deep fake is... It's a political actor that has AI...


After googling it, it's porn that uses ai to put someone's face on top of someone else's.
 
Is there anyone under the age of 65 that watches any mainstream news at all? Boomer? Boomer? Boomer?
It depends what you're referring to.

If you mean cable news, the median age is around 60, so by definition half the audience 60 or less.
If you mean the network newscasts, then I suspect it's older, given that less than 25% of the audience is under 55, but in 2015 it ranged from roughly 45-55. I didn't find recent numbers with demographic breakouts.
 
Back
Top