While the technology is amazing, I am a bit bothered by all these picture and video modifying algorithms.
The issue is that we can't know what's real any more. It used to be if you saw a video or a photo depicting an event you could be pretty sure that what you're looking at actually happened.
Now, if you see a video of a prominent politician saying something awful in your twitter timeline (or whatever), they may have actually never said anything remotely close. It could be a completely fictional video that looks perfectly realistic[0], made by some teen in Macedonia.[1]
I realize photography and video have always been used to trick people into thinking things that aren't true, but this technology enables nuclear-grade deception.
I am wondering: is there a use-case for such an algorithm that is practical and good for the world?
PS: I know an eye-rolling algo is quite innocuous but I've had this thought on my mind about these in general and needed to air it out.
> It used to be if you saw a video or a photo depicting an event you could be pretty sure that what you're looking at actually happened.
That is only true because we are in a wierd transition period. Before photography, there was no way to create an accurate snapshot of an event. Since then, it was easy to take a photo, but hard to fake one. For the first time in history we were able to make visual proof of events. Of course, since the beginning, people have been trying to fake photographs. That has been mostly detectable, but is getting better and better all the time.
(This also gives us a certain fetishism for unedited images in journalism. I understand where it comes from, but I think it is objectively wierd that certain manipulations are allowed, and others considered scandalous.)
I believe we are moving to a period, where we can no longer consider photos to proove facts. People will resist for quite some time (as they are resisting the fact that the internet allows us to copy information for free). There will be legal push-back, image editing will be scandalized... but eventually, the technology will be come so good and ubiquotious that nobody can rely on pictures anymore.
I also believe it is a good thing! We are becoming more and more nervous about our image on the internet, about private photos leaking out there, ruining our employability etc.. What happens if everybody can say: "OK Google, make a photo of Jason where he is drunk and riding a donkey" and you get a convincing fake? Eventually, we must adapt, and these worries will go away.
We will have to learn to treat pieces of information not due their origin, but only due to their content.
For a current example: You got a picture of President Trump with prosititues in Moscow? I don't care if that really happened or not - I'm not prude, and it doesn't have immediate relevance. Let him have fun. What I do care about: Does the story fit my image of him? Do I think he is capable of doing that? Does this have explaining power? Note it might as well be a painting or a blog post instead of a photo.
In my old days it seems I am going full-on postmodern...
> Faked pictures are more convincing than real pictures because you can set them up to look real. Understand this: All pictures are faked. As soon as you have the concept of a picture there is no limit to falsification.
The Place of Dead Roads by William S. Burroughs (1983)
Using trusted computing and related technologies it should be entirely feasible to build tamper-proof cameras that produce provably-real photos, including trusted timestamp. It should be a small step for example for Apple to add such a feature to their future iPhones, given the layers of security they already have in their hardware.
you are talking about secure infrastructure, but the image itself can be still faked. And no such infrastructure is safe, in the end, when given entirely to the end user (modify camera sensor, transfer signed image to an intact device).
Yes. And the problem exists only when a select few can manipulate photos. If everybody and their mother can do it, then indeed pictures will lose their credibility, and there is no problem (but there may be other problems, such as where do we get real evidence from now).
> It used to be if you saw a video or a photo depicting an event you could be pretty sure that what you're looking at actually happened.
This isn't really true. Image manipulation was long possible in the darkroom,[0] and you only need to look to hollywood to see how extraordinary deception can be done. The only thing that's changed these days is cost and ease of doing such manipulations.
> I am wondering: is there a use-case for such an algorithm that is practical and good for the world?
I mean, the most general goal would to eventually be able to create arbitrary amounts of entertainment for near zero cost. A constant stream of novel music tailored not just to model your tastes, but to expand your tastes. Ditto for movies/television/dramatic entertainment. Or food.
More near term, lots of areas of entertainment production studio workflows--mesh generation in games, color grading in movies, ability to do way cooler stuff in post production. It opens up tons of new techniques that producers and artists can use.
No doubt it enables a new level of deception, but we just need to develop better filters for it. Video and audio evidence should probably not be admissible in court anymore (or the burden a proof should be higher) but that's probably a good thing net net.
The scenario you speak of was true for the history of the human race prior to the invention of photography.
This is why we have institutions such as newspapers, academia, government etc. institutions that have an authority to inquire into and in turn establish some semblance of truth.
Maybe now some might understand why attacking the integrity of media, academia, and government is such a pernicious, short term and ultimately destructive tactic.
Technology will eventually give us another way for verifying fact from fake. Just as photographs did for hearsay, and videos did for photographs, now we'll have to wait for some memory-reading tech. :)
(Yes, that too will in turn be offset by memory-altering tech. After that we wait for time-travel tech.)
Maybe, but I wonder, if it's not our interpretation of memories that becomes flawed.
Maybe the "raw" record of our experiences is stored on a separate layer. I mean, I can close my eyes and flip through a series of images from my last 12 or so waking hours. They seem more like snapshots than a description of what I saw/where I was. Some people may have actual photographic memory [1].
Who knows, at some point in the future people may able to opt-in for implants that record everything around them, at a greater accuracy than brains, but use the brain for storage.
Memories made are highly subjective as you can only remember things you've perceived, and our sense of perception is highly distorted.
Some people have a better memory than others, and most people prioritize what they remember in significantly different ways. They may be good with names, bad with faces, or vice-versa. They might not remember particular dates, but will remember the weather.
Even people with a very good photographic memory might be blind to things. What song was playing there? What did they say to you? Did the place smell like anything in particular? What were you feeling at the time? What was the temperature like? Was there a draft? It's rare to find someone who's paying attention to everything, all the time, and taking notes mentally.
I find that the side-to-side motion is nearly natural. However, the up-down movement seems to introduce clipping between the lower eye lid and the iris in addition to slightly smudged upper lid. Still very cool technology. And here I thought Skolkovo was long dead.
The issue is that we can't know what's real any more. It used to be if you saw a video or a photo depicting an event you could be pretty sure that what you're looking at actually happened.
Now, if you see a video of a prominent politician saying something awful in your twitter timeline (or whatever), they may have actually never said anything remotely close. It could be a completely fictional video that looks perfectly realistic[0], made by some teen in Macedonia.[1]
I realize photography and video have always been used to trick people into thinking things that aren't true, but this technology enables nuclear-grade deception.
I am wondering: is there a use-case for such an algorithm that is practical and good for the world?
PS: I know an eye-rolling algo is quite innocuous but I've had this thought on my mind about these in general and needed to air it out.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk [1] https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/