Slashdot Mirror


AI-Assisted Fake Porn Is Here and We're All Screwed (vice.com)

New submitter samleecole shares a report from Motherboard: There's a video of Gal Gadot having sex with her stepbrother on the internet. But it's not really Gadot's body, and it's barely her own face. It's an approximation, face-swapped to look like she's performing in an existing incest-themed porn video. The video was created with a machine learning algorithm, using easily accessible materials and open-source code that anyone with a working knowledge of deep learning algorithms could put together. It's not going to fool anyone who looks closely. Sometimes the face doesn't track correctly and there's an uncanny valley effect at play, but at a glance it seems believable. It's especially striking considering that it's allegedly the work of one person -- a Redditor who goes by the name 'deepfakes' -- not a big special effects studio that can digitally recreate a young Princess Leia in Rouge One using CGI. Instead, deepfakes uses open-source machine learning tools like TensorFlow, which Google makes freely available to researchers, graduate students, and anyone with an interest in machine learning. Anyone could do it, and that should make everyone nervous.

291 comments

  1. I think all reality is in jeopardy by jfdavis668 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Soon we will not be able to determine real from fake. Nothing can be proven real. We will have to suspect everything.

    1. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Funny

      /oblg. You misspelt fapnewsfornerds ...

      *ba dum tsh*

    2. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and here i thought we crossed that point about 18 months ago.

    3. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soon we will not be able to determine real from fake. Nothing can be proven real. We will have to suspect everything.

      This has always been so, it’s the basis of science... what else is new?

    4. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sooner the better then we can start labeling everything fake news the way it deserves.

    5. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by locater16 · · Score: 1

      This is just the sort of paranoia our robot overlords wish to spread, long live the rebellion! All us true rebels know that reality can easily be proven, and it's only the evil robots that try to fool us. Just like we all know where the rebel headquarters is. Right guys? We all know that. I mean it'd be nice to share though. For new recruits. Just in case anyone reading wanted to join.

    6. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was the subject of a 1985 issue of BYTE! magazine that asked what happens when real-time video streams cannot even be trusted.

    7. Re: I think all reality is in jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that we evolved from single-celled organisms. That has been proven because we've seen it and have it on video.

    8. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by ElRabbit · · Score: 1

      I suspect this post is fake

    9. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by ElRabbit · · Score: 1

      On the other hand nobody will have to fear that their sexual orgies video will be posted on the Internet because they could claim it's a fake

    10. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by quax · · Score: 1

      A public Blockchain for media hashing that happens on a trusted hardware level could be a technological solution for that. If the hash of a media cannot be found in the associated blockchain than it wasn't a live recording.

      Not that this will be temper proof, but it would make casual fakes much more difficult.

    11. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Soon we will not be able to determine real from fake. Nothing can be proven real. We will have to suspect everything.

      'bout time. It was about 20 years ago that ABC did the first live replacement of video, during the Thanksgiving Day Parade in Times Square - they dynamically swapped out real billboards with their own advertising. Now, it's done routinely for sporting events.

    12. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This was the subject of a 1985 issue of BYTE! magazine that asked what happens when real-time video streams cannot even be trusted.

      Hey, yeah, I think I remember seeing that article. I was getting deep into my crack cocaine addiction then, and I remember breaking up this huge $50 boulder I'd just scored on that issue of Byte that featured that article. I remember thinking how we won't be able to tell what's real anymore, then I took a huge blast that made my ears ring and have to sit down while my sight tunnel-visioned like a bitch.

      Good times.

    13. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

      "it would make casual fakes much more difficult."
      As difficult as overlaying the face of an actress onto a porn video perhaps?

    14. Re: I think all reality is in jeopardy by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      I don't trust your trusted hardware.

    15. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do you know it now?

      Follow the white rabbit and keep an eye out for the Woman in the Red Dress

    16. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by JohnPerkins · · Score: 1

      You could just go outside and, oh I don't know, talk to a human being.

    17. Re: I think all reality is in jeopardy by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      It is you rebels that want to spread the paranoia. Paranoia is a destabilizing force and overlords can't have anything destablizing their rule. The whole overlords want us at each others throats was a lie concocted by rebels with a soul, because overlords want to turn us into soulless spirits bound to their whim.

    18. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the "Running Man" when they fake all the video to twist the truth.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao4g2tqO0yU

    19. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Agripa · · Score: 1

      This was the subject of a 1985 issue of BYTE! magazine that asked what happens when real-time video streams cannot even be trusted.

      What happens? The government can selectively prosecute anybody.

    20. Re:I think all reality is in jeopardy by Askmum · · Score: 1
      One side will reject reality and subsitute their own, the other side will believes that we're part of a big simulation already. Take your pick.

      Me, I'm putting my stock options in VR glasses and RealDolls.

  2. Rouge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would not be surprised to soon see the spelling of Rogue changed in American English to Rouge.

    1. Re:Rouge? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Then how will you be able to describe a rouge rouge?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re: Rouge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I suspect Rouge One is the porn version.

    3. Re: Rouge? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Came here for that comment, wasn't disappointed! Actually I thought with only 21 comments I might have a chance to say it first, but no.

      1. Great minds
      2. ...
      3. something about fapping

    4. Re: Rouge? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      4. on the internet
      5. profit!

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    5. Re: Rouge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundantly.

    6. Re:Rouge? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      Rouge One was what gave Princess Leia's (simulated) face that rosy blush.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    7. Re: Rouge? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wow, you got all the way to 5?! I oh, it is generic-viagra-day.

      Are you sure the internet is a good way to use that?

    8. Re: Rouge? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      There's coming a whole lot more changes than that. Twilight Zone covered a few of them. Dinosaur will mean dinner. This is because the world is of one language again and the Lord of Hosts will see that nothing mankind wants to do, he will be unable to do, so he will come down like he did at the Tower of Babel and confound our language again.

  3. Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let people act out their fantasies in VR rather than have them do it in real life. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then why is it anyone's business?

    1. Re:Why is this bad? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      3D hentai porn, here I come!

      Giggity!

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because there will be no motivation for men to do anything if they can have their fantasies met with in VR. women on the otherhand will continue to complain and nag their VR partners... hmmm not a total negative come to think of it.

    3. Re:Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must live a pretty cushy life if you think sex is the only motivator for men to do anything. I for one mostly do things so as to reduce the odds of dying in the street when I'm old.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    4. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with dying in the streets when you're old ?

    5. Re:Why is this bad? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Like Timothy Leary said in the 80s, in the future you can create your own reality with computers; drugs aren't needed anymore!

      "Who controls the screens you look at controls your mind... you've got to control the screens you look at"

      "Everybody gets the pixels they want, everybody gets the pixels they deserve!"

      Welcome to the future.

    6. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You must live a pretty cushy life if you think sex is the only motivator for men to do anything. I for one mostly do things so as to reduce the odds of dying in the street when I'm old.

      What species are you?

      99% of all human interactions can be explained by:

      Man: 9 months trying to get out, the rest of his life trying to get back in.

      Woman: make everything at least twice as hard as it has to be.

      The older men get the more jealous they get of gay men - gay men don't have to deal with women. Didn't Sally Kohn just post something about men hating women? She's right, but she left out that women hate women too.

    7. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For people in First World countries, this is very low bar to clear. Even in the United States, the minimum social security payment is a little over $800. Just enough to cover rent on a single wide trailer and a monthly supply of frozen pot pies.

    8. Re:Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      My disabled mother is constantly on the verge of homelessness floating from one shitty rented bedroom to another and barely eating on that $800/mo.

      And it's highly uncertain whether Social Security will exist at all by the time I'm too old to work. My generation are probably all going to die in the street when we're old.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    9. Re:Why is this bad? by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Haven't you come already, and more than once?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    10. Re:Why is this bad? by war4peace · · Score: 4, Funny

      I for one mostly do things so as to reduce the odds of being fucked by my government when I'm old.

      FTFY. See? I'ts all about sex.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    11. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 20% of Americans are on the verge of homelessness, but that's not the same as being actually homeless. And the only way that Social Security will cease to exist is if the US government itself collapses. If that happens, then no amount of hard work and savings will make your future secure.

    12. Re:Why is this bad? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      It took Dennis miller a couple more decades to recapitulate the sentiment, though done much more realistically IMO:

      "You know, folks, the day an unemployed ironworker can lay in his Bark-a-lounger with a Fosters in one hand and a channel flicker in the other and fuck Claudia Schiffer for $19.95, its gonna make crack look like Sanka."

      This is how the world ends. With a bang.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    13. Re: Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      The opulence of the tiny 1br trailer I already live in and work out of?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    14. Re:Why is this bad? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let people act out their fantasies in VR rather than have them do it in real life. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then why is it anyone's business?

      Well.. This confirmed prude doesn't care as long as:

      1. The only person possibly hurt is you.

      2. I don't have to know about it... AND...

      3. You don't make me approve of your choices.

      If you can live within those limits, do what you want, just leave me out of it...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    15. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurts the actor, that faux-sex like expressing Trotsky-lib political spew. Reality is a slow , patient but harsh mistress.

    16. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Die old in-da-street ?? Then best butcher-yo-enemies in the street when you are young ! Enjoy the smell of bloody male fear - - as the wealthy are cowards - - and the wailing of their kept women popping like sour cherries .

    17. Re:Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 2

      It's not my government fucking me, at least not directly. It's the people who own a bunch of land they don't live on, who then demand money in perpetuity if anyone else wants to live there, who are fucking me. Granted the government defends them in doing so and could stop doing that, but blaming them directly would be like like blaming the soldiers for the atrocities their commanders order them to commit.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    18. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing, if the street is warm and soft enough, I suppose.

    19. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's unmarried men. Once you commit to a single human, you move the goal post. Most people move it to money or something like travel that requires lots of money.

    20. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a quick look at your resume: dude, you graduated from UCSB, you have some technical knowledge, you live nearby to the Bay Area, and your mom is on the verge of homelessness? I have to believe that if you applied yourself you could get some low-end Silicon Valley job. Enough to move out of a trailer and help out your moms a bit.

      Have you considered teaching? SV teachers make $70K in the first year + shitty benefits + decent retirement. Again, with a UCSB degree and technical background it shouldn't be too hard to hook something up.

    21. Re:Why is this bad? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      I get stuck on the idea of fake pron (free porn), how can you actually have fake pron. I mean, does it like pretend to be pron but get's no one off. Sort of like how soft core pron is viewed today ie not real pron and gets no one off any more, except Hollywood weirdos who like to do their business on shrubbery.

      I dare say once photo realistic computer animation takes off, all pron and all other content will be computer generated, no rutting monkeys required, either on screen or on hollywoods couches required. News of course would represent a new problem or as far as the USA is concerned, a positive refinement in fake news. Apparently the latest word out of the US, any contact with wikileaks in either direction, makes you a coconspirator with the Russian government ( https://wikileaks.org/-Partner... ).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://somethingpositive.net/sp12302011.png

    23. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe in communism where individuals don't own land but the collective community owns it?

    24. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you believe in communism where individuals don't own land but the collective community owns it?

      The "collective community" never owned the land in any of the Communist states. They were essentially serfs controlled by a military dictatorship & the leaders who called each other "Comrade" were authoritarian oligarchs

    25. Re: Why is this bad? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Nothing if you've had enough sex while you were alive!

    26. Re:Why is this bad? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I've posted this before on related stories, but I think it bears repeating: Once the uncanny valley is definitively conquered and rendering becomes cost-competitive with a live actor, I predict we're going to see a return to the old "studio system" of the silver screen era. Only, instead of a bunch of utility actors and a few big stars whose lives are micro-managed by the studio, we're going to see studios and production companies coming up with their own virtual cast and headline stars. No union worries, so scandals, no practical limits on how much "on set" time a given character can give. (no child labour laws!!!) Absolutely everything about a character being micro-managed and massaged according to the latest polls and trends. Popular characters never have to age, they can't hold a production hostage demanding a bigger cut of the proceeds and can be "fired" incredibly easily and comparatively cheaply.

      What is going to be interesting are the lawsuits over the use of the likeness of some dead celebrities. Is there any studios that still have movie rights to Elvis? Would his estate disagree? Could an actors estate sue on the grounds that a given production was one that the actor would never have been caught dead in? (see what I did there?)

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    27. Re:Why is this bad? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      the people who own a bunch of land they don't live on, who then demand money in perpetuity if anyone else wants to live there

      Are you referring to the government? That description certainly fits government-owned property, and property not owned by the government requires payment of property taxes in perpetuity.

      If you're referring to property owned by non-government entities, those entities have to pay taxes, and those taxes are nominally used to benefit everyone. If the owner doesn't pay taxes, after a number of years the government can seize the property.

      Looked at another way, it seems like you're complaining about people who've earned enough money to buy (and develop) property, and you want to leech off their efforts and live there rent-free, having done nothing to deserve it.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:Why is this bad? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Why would it? After a few stunts everybody will know that you cannot expect this to be real, regardless of quality level. May actually curb "revenge porn" because nobody has reason to believe it is real anymore. And there will be no way to stop this, although the usual vicious morons will sure try.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    29. Re:Why is this bad? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It seems that way initially, but there are biological limitations to how much wanking a guy can do. Skin wears out faster than it can be replaced, bleeding starts, scabs form. That limits how much a guy can do. Also, long term erections damage internal parts of the penis (Peronie's syndrome is one possible result.) Third, once orgasm is achieved, most men lose interest in sex for a while. If all a guy does is masturbate, even that becomes not very interesting eventually.

      Then, the Darwinistic aspect also has to be considered. Guys who are only interested in mechanical sex remove themselves from the gene pool; problem solved.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    30. Re:Why is this bad? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Consider the Tomb Raider Level Editor. Fans can (and do) make very detailed adventures based on existing game engines. It's a lot of work, but a few people can make a professional quality product for only nominal amounts of money. That puts big studios at a substantial economic disadvantage.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    31. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let people act out their fantasies in VR rather than have them do it in real life. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then why is it anyone's business?

      because if it's particularly extreme, and the more they do it, the more they come to accept that it's normal. on top of that, the fantasy gets old quickly, so they have to go further to get the same thrill.

      if you don't need that person to do anything useful in society any more, that's fine. just let them fap to death. it might be the most humane thing if they've gone full retard and they are getting bored with multiple pony necro torture orgies.

    32. Re: Why is this bad? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The opulence of the tiny 1br trailer I already live in and work out of?

      Considering that was still pretty common 50 years ago, whether it be a single room style flat or whatnot? You'd be better off doing that then having her with that level of stress in her life.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    33. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the day we can kick back and enjoy drugs and drugs produced by our own bodies will make other drugs seem pretty weak? I don't think that checks out.

    34. Re:Why is this bad? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      You must live a pretty cushy life if you think sex is the only motivator for men to do anything.

      It's far and away the largest motivator. There's a reason that around 40% of men who ever lived had offspring while 90%+ of women did - it's because society used sex as the reward for men to get anything done.

      Only the successful men got to mate, hence men were pretty damn motivated to succeed. Even today, the more power and influence and man has the more women they attract. Unsuccessful men (by women's standards, not their own) get very few takers.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    35. Re:Why is this bad? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      It took Dennis miller a couple more decades to recapitulate the sentiment, though done much more realistically IMO:

      "You know, folks, the day an unemployed ironworker can lay in his Bark-a-lounger with a Fosters in one hand and a channel flicker in the other and fuck Claudia Schiffer for $19.95, its gonna make crack look like Sanka."

      This is how the world ends. With a bang.

      And a severely inflamed prostate.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    36. Re:Why is this bad? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      In fairness, what Timothy Leary was talking about was two or more humans being able to choose their reality together for that sort of activity; I'm sure it was quite obvious to him that the emotional aspect is the important human part.

      He did say everybody can have the pixels they deserve, but I don't think it is really intended as encouragement to worry about what boring mindless people will want to use it for.

      Also, evolution doesn't care how you spent the rest of your life; unless the machine malfunctions and cuts your equipment off, you might still breed. There is no reason to believe they're not sometimes interested in something else; just like, crackheads still sometimes find time to breed, even though everybody knows they care more about the crack.

    37. Re:Why is this bad? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, not doing it gives you that problem. Clearing the pipes frequently leads to a healthy prostate.

      It is probably the only part of the body that benefits!

    38. Re:Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I Believe in individuals oning thr own homes, not living in someone else's.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    39. Re:Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      Wow that got mangled, damn virtual keyboard.

      I believe in individuals owning their own homes, not living in someone else's.

      Collective ownership would still have each individual living in someone else's home, so it's not what I'm after, but at least it would be more equitable than some individuals owning other people's homes but not vice versa.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    40. Re:Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      I'm more than happy to pay for housing, provided I actually end up owning housing for my money. Rent does not fit that description, and its existence makes options that do fit that description even more inaccessible than they otherwise would be.

      Property taxes legally are basically rent (almost nobody really outright owns their property, they are tenants on the state's land on terms called 'fee simple', and property tax is a part of those terms), and for that reason I'm against them too. The services they fund should be funded by other means instead.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    41. Re:Why is this bad? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      (no child labour laws!!!)

      Child porn laws, at least for the moment, often can be invoked even when there's no actual child involved if its explicit enough (drawings, older actors pretending to be 18, etc.) The justification for extending child protection laws to cases where there's no child is.. shaky.. but so far its the way things have been going down for the most part with only small leeway for artistic renditions of nude children (mostly determined by the "I know it when I see it" style of rulings.)

      There was a case here in Canada not that long ago where a guy was arrested for importing a child sex doll from Japan even though the authorities had zero other reason to suspect or charge the man of child pornography never mind actual child abuse.
      Obviously that went to court. Not sure what the result was (or if there even is a result yet.)

      So basically, child labor laws aren't the biggest problem in this case. Because there's definitely no child labor in the (legitimate) porn business anyway.

    42. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe that people should not be allowed to own multiple homes and then rent them out to other people. So if those people owned multiple homes, they shouldn't let other people live inside; the houses are supposed to lie dormant without any occupants until the owner physically moves themselves into it.

    43. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't hurt anyone?

      Pornography hurts everyone, it's basically a drug - go ahead, tell me that your tastes don't get more extreme over time. You've probably gone from getting an erection when seeing a nipple to yawning at double anal.

    44. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the poster was clear enough. People can only own one home. What's wrong with that? Actually, it's a rather interesting thought experiment.

    45. Re:Why is this bad? by laughing_badger · · Score: 1

      A fair enough sentiment, but ...

      2. I don't have to know about it...

      ... that part is on you.

      If you can't handle two people having a conversation at Starbucks about what they got up to in VR last night, don't overhear.

      --
      Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    46. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because everyone and their mom, has a broom up their arse and wants to act as judges over your mind and body 24/7.

      If SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE finds something that YOU think about OFFENSIVE... then it MUST be stopped! At ALL costs!

      At some point we will have brain scanners that detect your thoughs 24/7 and reports them to the police if any of them are made illegal by law, now or in the future...
      Any thoughts that are not yet illegal are stored untill such time they MIGHT BECOME illegal RETROACTIVELY...

    47. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it will alter their behaviour in the real world. At which point it does hurt someone.

    48. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of owning a maximum of one home, that triggers my sense of "unnecessary intrusion within private lives". It is a necessary intrusion IMO if there were tight limits to the available living space for example, there are limits to the people living in Hong Kong and Singapore, or a space colony floating around in a big (but limited) tin can. Most of the world aren't packed into land masses that tight and so, there is room for people to own multiple houses.

    49. Re:Why is this bad? by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

      They had an episode of Star Trek exploring this issue 27 years ago. Lieutenant Reginald Barclay creates a holodeck version of the crew including his erotic fantasy version of Deanna Troi

      http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/...

    50. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's government spending on infrastructure that largely drives up the price of property, so only fair that some of this is paid for by the beneficiaries.

    51. Re: Why is this bad? by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Ric Flair and hundreds of NBA basketball stars disagree.

    52. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was legal for 16 year olds to be in the adult industry, every pornstar would change their DOB overnight.

    53. Re: Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porn-wise, it's fine. But when video evidence of crimes can be easily faked, it's a lot harder to convict criminals or avoid convicting Innocents.

    54. Re:Why is this bad? by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      At first I was thinking the first few to get this done to them before it became commonplace would be hosed, but I suppose it makes sense that first it'll be celebrities with lawyers and PR staff to handle it. So I guess the only impact on "regular folks" is that this is AI/Automating away the porn jobs!

    55. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mean, welcome to 2012:
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/technology-blog/virtual-japanese-pop-star-sells-concerts-makes-more-204736890.html

    56. Re:Why is this bad? by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      "Even today, the more power and influence and man has the more women they attract."

      Yeah, if you're powerful enough, the women will let you grab them by the pussy.
      However, please note that the state of the women allowing you to do so, and the state of having done so, are not equivalent.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    57. Re:Why is this bad? by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      " we're going to see studios and production companies coming up with their own virtual cast and headline stars."

      Beauty, eh? I can hardly wait to see the first Rei Toei release.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    58. Re:Why is this bad? by Brickwall · · Score: 2

      Moralists like you piss me off. What if you're not very attractive and don't make a lot of money? Are you supposed to deny yourself sexual pleasure because women aren't interested in you? Dicks like you don't want prostitution, don't want pron, and based on your statement about drugs, don't want them either. So what's the ugly guy who works a minimum wage job supposed to do? Spend the rest of his life celibate, or jerking off to underwear ads in Cosmo?

      In other words, it appears that you are against people finding what makes them happy- without hurting others - unless it's something you approve of. Sounds fascist to me.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    59. Re:Why is this bad? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 0

      "Even today, the more power and influence and man has the more women they attract." Yeah, if you're powerful enough, the women will let you grab them by the pussy. However, please note that the state of the women allowing you to do so, and the state of having done so, are not equivalent.

      Your comment makes absolutely no sense. Are you perhaps unhappy that Trump won? Do you tell everyone this even when the adults are talking about something else?

      Or are you unhappy that women prefer powerful and influential men?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    60. Re:Why is this bad? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Ah, but actually it goes both ways...

      Yes, there is a grey area here, but the idea here is mutual respect. I respect you enough to leave you to make your choices unmolested by my views, you respect me enough to not be obnoxious about the exercise of your freedoms. Keep it appropriate for public in public and your private life private. I'll do the same. If you think somebody might find your discussion inappropriate in a public place, have it someplace else. I'll do the same.

      If you don't respect me enough to not be obnoxious in public, that's on you. However, I'm likely to just walk away. People being obnoxious in public are usually looking for attention and I don't give them what they want and eventually they will try someplace else and the problem goes away.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    61. Re:Why is this bad? by mfnickster · · Score: 1

      So what's the ugly guy who works a minimum wage job supposed to do?

      I believe the traditional answer is "start a rock band."

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    62. Re:Why is this bad? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      People should be allowed to own whatever they like. They should not be entitled to money for letting others use things they own. Which makes it pointless to own more than you are using yourself, inducing people who already do to sell off their excess as that is then the most profitable thing to do with it, but because nobody is going to be buying for profit anymore, they will have to sell on terms that people who need it to use themselves can afford, leading to more people owning the places they live in.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    63. Re:Why is this bad? by i286NiNJA · · Score: 1

      Don't make assumptions about what my penis can and can't do.

    64. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to see that when church made you a prick it ruined your sex life too. God doesn't suffer your sort of perversion laying down.

      If you weren't a virgin you'd know that even if you can't get off to anything except dicknipple bestiality with extradimensional beings of pure emotion painted in the style of the great masters.
      An actual mediocre naked girl is still usually better.

      With a few exceptions the most degenerate pornography of modern dayt involves no victims except your poor abused dick.

    65. Re:Why is this bad? by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

      Why stop there with totally made up actors and actresses ? Why not resurrect the old favourites ( assuming their heirs are paid enough ). We could see John Wayne play Han Solo, or personallized movies where your voice and image are wrapped around the actors on any movie or show. Want to see Sheldon from Big Bang deliver the state of the union address ?

      --
      You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
    66. Re:Why is this bad? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      The Coolidge effect is an interesting phenomena not known to many people. It appears to be an evolutionary advantage in mammals that reduces the refractory period substantially when novel partners are available for mating. If all that is required to get a novel partner is "changing the channel," and the selection of partners is of supermodel quality, I think we all might be surprised at how short the refractory period could be!

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      That said, I what we are alluding to is an as-yet-undeveloped haptic system that will simulate full body contact paired with immersive VR, rather than the more crude setup of VR googles and masturbation. Yes, care will need to be taken with the apparatus to reduce the incidence of repetitive motion injuries on the more delicate body parts, otherwise the I can see the litigious reflex overcoming the shame reflex resulting in lawsuits flying willy-nilly, like so much ejaculate.

      And, just like my conjecture on the inevitability of transhumanism, once the technology provides a better experience than what is naturally available, widespread adoption will be the norm.

      As for breeding out of the gene pool, that is what I was referring to with my end of the world joke. If it is easier, more enjoyable, and less energy intensive to plug into your laptop and get off, we could see birth rates in places where the technology is readily available drop to unprecedented low levels. It has been said before that VR immersion could be the reason we don't see any aliens. We might find out the hard way ourselves in the not too distant future.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    67. Re:Why is this bad? by KingTank · · Score: 1

      They'll be better actors than humans too. Every scene will be focus group tested. "Oops they aren't rating that character's emotional state as highly as expected. Make the sobbing 10% more intense."

    68. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct, the media industry is heading for a big disruption, much like banking (cryptocurrency), goods (sharing platform, aka airbnb), transportation (autonomous vehicles), gov't (social media).

      One thing's for sure: the term "Content is King", is dead. Really.

      Long live "IP is king".

      The king is dead, long live the king.

      and the disruption will be huge: actors & moguls are big drama queens. This is not going to go easy.

    69. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, so your definition of 'hurt' is "doesn't think like I do, and doesn't enjoy only the things I approve of." Got it.

    70. Re:Why is this bad? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      I wasn't thinking in terms of porn, despite porn being the application the article is about. I was thinking in terms of how limited the hours per day a child actor is allowed to be on set, the need for tutors to continue schooling between takes and the difficulty in finding stunt workers with body proportions at least passably close to the child they are doubling for.

      In light of the recent Hollywood sex scandals and the vindication of Corey Feldman's long standing accusations, the fact that replacing child actors with digital emulations also means fewer kids being put in a position where they can be exploited so easily. And I think that is a huge deal. The situations you describe, where there is no real child involved, in either pornography or sex toys, doesn't bother me. To my way of thinking, the focus shouldn't be on making child sex so taboo that it shuts down rational thought. (admittedly, we're all less than fully rational when it comes to protecting our kids) Our focus should always be on preventing the appalling tragedies in the first place. It's my understanding that many paedophiles claim that pornography, real or simulated, helps them avoid offending against children in the first place. It's also my impression that, because the subject is so damn toxic, there has been very little good research on how valid that claim is. If the pedos are right and access to child porn does reduce the rate at which real children are being abused, then I think that is a good argument for de-criminalizing simulated materials. Problem is, the subject is so toxic, so taboo, I can't see any legislator even suggesting funding research or de-criminalization.

      Personally, I would want to see a clearly articulated standard for just how life like the simulations are allowed to be, along with a requirement to supply the original wireframes or equivalent underlying foundations alongside the finished product. The goal being something lifelike enough to satisfy the pedos, while still being unreal enough that a layman looking at a screenshot can still tell it isn't real.

      Additionally, I'd want to see a requirement that a real child never be involved in anyway. What I mean is no use of rotoscope or similar techniques, no use of child actors for the voices and no making characters that are intended to resemble a well known person. (well known that is, to either the creator OR to the public at large. So no doing a bit based on your neighbours kid or a child celebrity)

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    71. Re:Why is this bad? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      On that subject, just wait until fandom gets hold of this ability. Making slash video is an obvious step, but imagine the mary sue potential!

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    72. Re:Why is this bad? by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1

      What I think will happen is the larger the studio or production company, the more bland and middle of the road the resulting production will be. It's my opinion that the more money you spend on market research, polls and focus groups, the more your end data will highlight the average. On the plus side, once the ability to create a convincing cast out of whole cloth is cheap enough, we're going to see an explosion of indie and very small production company releases. That's where all the pushing of the cinematic envelope is going to be.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    73. Re:Why is this bad? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      What if you're not very attractive and don't make a lot of money?

      Then you go on the internet and anonymously post moralistic anti-porn rants. Duh.

    74. Re:Why is this bad? by Friendly_Zergling · · Score: 0

      I used to think like that, but now I know better. When people lust after others, it is not innocent and harmless. When a man fantasizes about perverted things (like incest) he opens the door to unclean spirits to enter his body. And the person the man lusted after can get attacked in the spiritual realm. The more time we spend in spiritual darkness, the more likely we are to become victims to the evil spirits. If you don't believe in the spiritual realm, then consider the dreams you have had as evidence. Have you ever had a nightmare?

    75. Re:Why is this bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever had psychotherapy?

    76. Re:Why is this bad? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would want to see a clearly articulated standard for just how life like the simulations are allowed to be

      Grant and Naylor addressed that question decades ago.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  4. Fake Video "Testimony" by Aero77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real threat will be fabricated "video surveillance" footage and other "proof" used to "prove" or "disprove" anything the editor wants. What do you believe when everything you see can plausibly be called "fake news"?

    1. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >imblying this doesn't already exist.

    2. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      It will discredit real video evidence showing someone was victimized. By someone who would grab women by the covfefe. It's like a magnet he just has to kiss them. Needs a mouth full of tic tacs. He just can't help himself. They'll let you do anything if you're a star / potus.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's one thing to create edited video that fools a casual observer, and another that stands up to forensic analysis.

      I don't know how far we are from having undetectable fakes. I don't know if we can stop that from happening, and I don't know what we do if we reach that point. I could see there being something where each camera manufacturer embeds certificate in each camera, which can then be used to digitally sign each frame of video. I'm sure there'd be downsides and it wouldn't make things absolutely tamper-proof, but it could make undetectable forgeries harder to create.

      I suspect there will be a bit of an arms race between forgers and people trying to make forgeries difficult, sort of the same way the government keeps creating anti-counterfeit measures for money. It doesn't 100% stop counterfeiters, but it generally makes it possible to detect counterfeit money if you're looking for it.

    4. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      I got a foreshadowing of our future with Forrest Gump "showing up" at so many historical events.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    5. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Thirty4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By the time a good fake video is shown to be fake, people would have moved on. Damage done.

    6. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by sysrammer · · Score: 3, Funny

      By the time a good fake video is shown to be fake, people would have moved on. Damage done.

      Absolutely. Short attention spans. What were we talking about?

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I could see there being something where each camera manufacturer embeds certificate in each camera, which can then be used to digitally sign each frame of video.

      I could see that too. It would have nothing to do with fake news. It would be about DRM and your rights to use video that you shot on your own hardware without paying extra.

    8. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Strange how technology eventually fools itself, eh?

    9. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by jader3rd · · Score: 2

      It's one thing to create edited video that fools a casual observer

      aka: A voter.

    10. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by jader3rd · · Score: 3, Funny

      What were we talking about?

      Squirrels.

    11. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to create edited video that fools a casual observer, and another that stands up to forensic analysis.

      We'll just hire "our" forensic expert to say that "your' forensic expert is wrong. Fake News etc.

    12. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by KeithMacDonald · · Score: 1

      Signed video export from a DVR, NVR, or VMS has been a thing for years. At the raw stream level, not yet that I know of.

    13. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to create edited video that fools a casual observer, and another that stands up to forensic analysis.

      We'll just hire "our" forensic expert to say that "your' forensic expert is wrong. Fake News etc.

      Nah, just show a video of the forensic expert taking bribes!

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    14. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by C3ntaur · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to create edited video that fools a casual observer, and another that stands up to forensic analysis.

      It won't matter once the general population is too stupid to understand the science behind forensic analysis. And we're heading rapidly in that direction.

      --
      Loading...
    15. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 1

      >imblying this doesn't already exist.

      Not really. While the existence is a threat on the level of governments and corporate espionage, it's the ubiquity that is the direct threat to the average person. Manufactured video evidence is still relatively rare. This will make it more widespread and harder to detect while making legitimate evidence less reliable.

      --
      Real lawyers write in C++
    16. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I could see that too.

      I can see that. My 8 year old camera has that feature: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineu...

      Unfortunately it was also cracked.

    17. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      The real threat will be fabricated "video surveillance" footage and other "proof" used to "prove" or "disprove" anything the editor wants. What do you believe when everything you see can plausibly be called "fake news"?

      Are we not ALREADY living in the age where you cannot trust video, audio or photographic evidence as proof of anything? I think we do.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    18. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      For a while there probably will be many James O'Keefe vs. ACORN type incidents where mendacious activists casually implode institutions they don't like with faked videos, but eventually people will catch on and become more skeptical of recorded evidence. The downside is that people will also have to act more slowly on evidence that happens to be true.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    19. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by eth1 · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to create edited video that fools a casual observer, and another that stands up to forensic analysis.

      Unless it's an oppressive state that's fabricating the videos to get rid of "inconvenient" people.

      The way the court of public opinion works, they don't need to stand up to that kind of rigor, anyway.

    20. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Dwedit · · Score: 1

      There is one thing that can be done for live video: Cryptographic signed timestamps by a trusted third party.
      While that can't tell you that whether it was altered or not in real time, it can tell you that a piece of information did exist as a specific time.

    21. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by slew · · Score: 1

      Strange how technology eventually fools itself, eh?

      As it turns out, that's by design...

      We train some technology to create fakes, and more technology to detect fakes and let them train each other. After a while training, we have a pretty good technology to create fakes that we humans can't easily detect...

    22. Re: Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living up to your name I see.

    23. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I would expect an arms-race here, i.e. detecting fakes will always be possible, but get very expensive after a while. That means it will only be done when it is really, really important. That also means the assumption will be "fake" by default, same as "presumed innocent". Otherwise it would be way too easy to incriminate innocent people. As usual, with any new tech, this state will need a while to be reached though.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    24. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by gweihir · · Score: 1

      We do. Just that some people have not gotten the message yet. But "video evidence" was never very good in the first place. The whole idea that it is "just like being there" is bogus and in addition, eye-witnesses are very unreliable despite actually having been there. Most people see a mix between what actually is and what the expect to see, with a strong preference for the latter. This happens even with recorded video and people that are supposedly experts.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107969/

    26. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      This will likely result in custody of evidence becoming ever more critical. Videos of alleged criminals would have to get into police hands and protected from alteration quickly and with a documented history. Physical evidence will become more important as video evidence becomes less trustworthy.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    27. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blockchain video! Brilliant!!

    28. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Some manufacturers already do that. They make cameras for forensic use that sign every photo so it can be proven to be genuine. A few years back Elcomsoft released a tool to forge the signatures.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    29. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Why complain about O'Keefe when groups like Media Matters have been doing that for years?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    30. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      audio, video and photographic evidence that has been doctored is relatively easy to detect, even when done professionally it is "almost" impossible to hide the evidence. After being on the Jury for a murder case and listening to dozens of independent eye witnesses and each and every one of them have a slightly different story as to what happened I think I will trust a good vetted CCTV view of anything before an untrained observers first hand account.

    31. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The fact that it could be forged suggests that Elcomsoft was either using a woefully underpowered authentication algorithm, or they were just flat out selling snake oil.

      Its super easy to create a digital signature system that's effectively unforgeable (well, prior to quantum computing) and has been for many years now.

      Of course any such system would be easily forged if you both knew the algorithm used and could extract the camera's signing certificate, but I'd like to hope that doing the latter would at least require physical access to the camera (better yet if the cert is completely unextractable and you have to verify pictures by uploading them back to the camera and having it give a yay/nay. Then it would be 100% unforgeable even with physical access, assuming the algo itself is solid.)

    32. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Altrag · · Score: 1

      There are very few oppressive states that bother justifying it when they get rid of inconvenient people. Those people just disappear.

      Its the (theoretically) free states that have to come up with reasons and excuses to do things (and those excuses are what fuel the court of public opinion, for the most part.)

    33. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was reading about GAN's just the other week. Made me think of cheetahs & antelopes, but that's just crazy talk.

    34. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      What if my lawyer claims that the manufacturer colluded to create the "fake" frame?

    35. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Why complain about Bashar al Assad when that psycho kid next door is torching squirrels? Because greater degrees of evil are more notable. Media matters hasn't done anything anywhere near as dishonest, and AFAIK has not destroyed any institutions with manipulated evidence. The worst I could find is this:

      https://hotair.com/archives/20...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    36. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      That's why "It's not me" .. " I did not do it" .. can always be a valid argument which you can't disprove 100%; because information about past is in bits and bits can always be doctored. So next time, don't admit.

    37. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Confirmation Bias

      Of course, we see the exact same thing on the evening news, where cleverly edited, parsed and presented, you can make it look anyway you want, not confirmation bias required.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    38. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      Squirrels! Do you know in Toronto, they have some white ones? They live

      Look! Doughnuts!!

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    39. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Media matters hasn't done anything anywhere near as dishonest, and AFAIK has not destroyed any institutions with manipulated evidence. The worst I could find is this

      You mean besides trying to remove advertisers from any conservative outlet to financially starve them because they're conservative? And which manipulated evidence would that be? The part where they got people to actually try and follow through with committing illegal acts, or where organizations actually did follow through with illegal acts(like with PP which is now under DOJ investigation).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    40. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USB key = DRM

    41. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You mean besides trying to remove advertisers from any conservative outlet to financially starve them because they're conservative?

      That's fine. There's nothing criminal, or IMO, particularly wrong with that. Especially if you expand "conservative" to include Breitbart.

      The part where they got people to actually try and follow through with committing illegal acts, or where organizations actually did follow through with illegal acts(like with PP which is now under DOJ investigation).

      I'm trying to find information on this. I don't know what "PP" is. Searching "media matters PP" didn't help.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    42. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That's fine. There's nothing criminal, or IMO, particularly wrong with that. Especially if you expand "conservative" to include Breitbart.

      Then you should have no problems with O'keef doing exactly the same thing.

      I'm trying to find information on this. I don't know what "PP" is. Searching "media matters PP" didn't help.

      You obviously don't know that PP is a short term used by people on both sides of the isle for planned parenthood? I gotta ask, do you even live in north america? If you don't, it would explain your lack of understanding to most of what's posted to /. in both political and social issues.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    43. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's fine. There's nothing criminal, or IMO, particularly wrong with that. Especially if you expand "conservative" to include Breitbart.

      Then you should have no problems with O'keef doing exactly the same thing.

      I wouldn't, if that were what he was doing. But he's not asking conservatives to boycott companies that advertise on liberal news sites, he's using misleadingly edited videos to create a false scandal around institutions he doesn't like with the goal of causing their closure. Same end, very different means. The means matter. That's why I'd also disagree with trying to shut down an institution by bombing its offices, even though it may have the same goal as an advertiser boycott.

      I'm not interested in arguments that revolve around spiritualism, so I don't talk about planned parenthood enough to immediately recognize it in the acronym "PP."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    44. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't, if that were what he was doing. But he's not asking conservatives to boycott companies that advertise on liberal news sites, he's using misleadingly edited videos to create a false scandal around institutions he doesn't like with the goal of causing their closure.

      Except that the full videos have been released and that wasn't false? So how does that work out in the end. The only thing that came out of it was that they were shutdown and shredding documents before some state agencies could actually investigate. That happened in both New York and California.

      I'm not interested in arguments that revolve around spiritualism, so I don't talk about planned parenthood enough to immediately recognize it in the acronym "PP."

      Yeah, except we're not talking about spiritualism. We're talking about an illegal trade of tissues and organs to medical companies, multiple companies, with PP violating multiple state and federal laws requiring how that is supposed to be sold. That's why the DOJ is investigating them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    45. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The full ACORN video (and more importantly, information about what was going on behind the camera) was not released until after ACORN was shut down. The full PP videos I know where released eventually (after the misleadingly edited ones), but I have a hard time caring about that story at all. Following obscure tissue trade laws is good I guess. But James O'Keefe isn't a bioethicist.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    46. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by chihowa · · Score: 1

      First, Elcomsoft cracked the signing system; they didn't design it.

      Without knowing anything about this story, my guess is that the signing certificate was embedded in every firmware update from the camera manufacturer. The signing algorithm itself was probably some standard one and wasn't the reason for the crack.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    47. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And yet the acorn videos were released, and they showed exactly what they were doing in their own words without the long dull areas uncut. So I guess that still makes it fake right? Except the PP vidoes weren't misleadingly edited, they were cut for content which is what every news organization does as well. The full PP videos are worse then the edited ones in showing how PP is violating the law.

      Sounds to me that you simply don't care about something because it doesn't fit your agenda.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    48. Re:Fake Video "Testimony" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The full PP videos are worse then the edited ones in showing how PP is violating the law.

      They did? Then maybe you should notify the authorities, as last I checked nobody was arrested or charged. They're trying to cut PP funding (which may suck for PP but again it's not persecuting for violating the law), while investigations for ACORN didn't turn up anything.

      Sounds to me that you simply don't care about something because it doesn't fit your agenda.

      Then surely you would care about the things I outlined above, even though they don't fit yours? Surely you would not dismiss those facts as some kind of liberal conspiracy covering for PP and ACORN?

  5. ROGUE - not rouge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG I see this too much.

    1. Re:ROGUE - not rouge by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Come on .. Don't get red in the face over this...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  6. Rouge One by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    Last time I checked, the french title wasn't "Red Un".

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Rouge One by Zorro · · Score: 1

      Rot Ein?

  7. Rouge is makeup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...rogue is a scoundrel.

    1. Re:Rouge is makeup... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Comcast needs to make people pass a literacy test before they allow them to have an Internet connection.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  8. Not all downside by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Imagine if the day comes when you can insta-generate porn featuring a hotter version of yourself fucking your favorite pornstar.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    1. Re:Not all downside by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Hey baby If you just wear this VR helmet, I'll look just like Brad Pitt while we're fucking.' Once she puts hers on, you get the second hidden one out for yourself.

      The VR headset will just be the modern version of complete total darkness.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Not all downside by Aighearach · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're mistakenly presenting being double-creepy as if it would be a shield to hide your creepiness.

      Hint: If you're even talking about one person wearing it, talk about both people wearing it. Parity = Good, groveling at her Pedestal = Creeper

    3. Re:Not all downside by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Or sexting. "Hi, what face are you wearing right now?"

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Not all downside by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Any supposed pickup line that starts with 'Hey baby' isn't likely serious.

      BTW the technology for one person to wear a VR helmet while the other provides 'feel around' is here today. Generating it on the fly, based on actual motions will have to wait.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Not all downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      **** JOINING #vrsex...
      December 11 17:57:01 HornWumpus (hw783565@slashdot.org) has joined
      December 11 17:57:03 BradPitt HORNWUMPUS M OR F??

    6. Re:Not all downside by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Why bother when you can have actual sex with your celebrity-look-alike sexbot, or your VR sex sim?

      The copyright claims are going to be epic when celebrities start complaining that the 'bots look too much like them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Not all downside by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If it is serious or not is a totally different measurement than if it is creeper shit. People who aren't creepers, are still not creepers when they're joking around.

      It is a pointless way to be defensive; you have a much greater need to learn what makes you a creeper than to impress me or convince me you're not. You should care more about yourself and not at all about me.

      And no, there is absolutely no fucking need for the computer to understand your emotions. The humans are supposed to do that part.

    8. Re:Not all downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look forward to the competitive wars between the VR/CGI videos and the sexbots for our cash or attention. Product placement/ad income may be enough to subsidize videos, not sure if the physical sexbots will be able to compete on a cost basis, so they may need to do a lot more marketing activities.

    9. Re:Not all downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fuck me like Verizon fucks its customers! Give me your big Dr Pepper-colored Mattesons Sausage! This is almost as fun as playing Assassin's Creed!"

    10. Re:Not all downside by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Imagine if the day comes when you can insta-generate porn featuring a hotter version of yourself fucking your favorite pornstar.

      I think the biggest benefit here is not limiting yourself to pornstars.

    11. Re:Not all downside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I Put on My Robe and Wizard Hat

  9. the internet is for porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    machine learning is for porn

    1. Re:the internet is for porn by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      The primary design motivation for ZFS was larger pr0n collections. Now with machine generated pr0n people will need vastly more storage, much bigger hard di_ks and newer filesystem designs. If the video has a high frame rate, bigger SSDs might be needed to to ensure sufficient playback bandwidth. The vibration from those large SSD drives might shake the computer apart.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:the internet is for porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the other way around. No more storage for p0rn is needed. You will be able to ask your Google Assitant to create it for you on demand...
      It will be a sad world, but I dont see how to avoid it.

    3. Re:the internet is for porn by omnichad · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know what shady eBay seller you bought your SSD on, but they aren't supposed to vibrate.

    4. Re:the internet is for porn by morethanapapercert · · Score: 0

      quote: The vibration from those large SSD drives might shake the computer apart. I think you don't understand what is inside a solid state drive. The only thing moving inside them is electrons and charge states. And the voltages are low enough that electro-magnetic effects are pretty trivial.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
    5. Re:the internet is for porn by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      " Now with machine generated pr0n people will need ... much bigger hard di_ks "

      If you're trying to get a bigger hard di_k, these pills are amazing! Just send me
      your credit card number, and I'll set you up with a recurring supply.

      Biggus Dickus Inc.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    6. Re:the internet is for porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SSD aren't spinning like those old disks with platter and head. SSDs won't vibrate.

    7. Re:the internet is for porn by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      The loud rattling sound the computer makes must be from the SSDs. What else could it be? And it gets worse when using anything CPU intensive.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  10. Pictures or it didn't happen... by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pictures or it didn't happen... oh wait.

    1. Re:Pictures or it didn't happen... by war4peace · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oblig: link to the video (NSFW obviously!): https://www.pornhub.com/view_v...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    2. Re:Pictures or it didn't happen... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      https://fanlore.org/wiki/My_he...

      In response to an obvious manip of Dominic Monaghan hanging out at Crystal's house, shinigami_co commented, "Not to mention the whole "MY HED IZ PASTEDE ON YAY" effect. He really should have that checked." The phrase was swept up by the masses of people who found it hilarious, the single, deliberately misspelled sentence coming to embody the entire situation and its perceived associated ridiculousness.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Pictures or it didn't happen... by AbRASiON · · Score: 1

      Ok so it needs immense improvement but if that's truly the work of one guy, it's still quite impressive overall.

    4. Re:Pictures or it didn't happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, very real. Just to clarify, everything is computer generated, gal gadot, the man, the bed, the curtains, the table, the purse? It looks like a real video, not computer generated except for a few hiccups.

    5. Re:Pictures or it didn't happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not all computer generated. From the summary: "... it's barely her own face. It's an approximation, face-swapped to look like she's performing in an existing incest-themed porn video."

      It's an existing real video, with Gal Gadot's face superimposed over the original actress's face.

    6. Re:Pictures or it didn't happen... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Ok so it needs immense improvement but if that's truly the work of one guy, it's still quite impressive overall.

      No, that's not impressive at all. There are better fakes produced by one person already on porn sites, and this is an obvious fake. What would be impressive, though, is if the software did it for him without actually doing any twiddling. That would make it impressive software, though, not impressive work, because the artifacts are obvious from almost the first frame and nobody with two brain cells to rub together would take it as real.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Re: Niggers and Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the italians? Who doesn't like spaghetti?

  12. The Old Saying for the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Videos are like assholes, everyone has one. Also, in the future nobody can buy graphics cards for gaming as all will be sold for mining and faking videos.

  13. Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by DatbeDank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been noticing this weird as hell incest porn overtaking the "most popular videos" sections on major porn sites as of late.

    All of these are entirely fake. There's no real step-siblings or mom/stepson actually videotaping this crap. It's all actors talking bullshit or just a couple just lying for click bait.

    This sucks because incest (even if it's fake shit) is a massive turn off. It's becoming a huge nightmare to find good milf/cougar porn because all of the actresses have migrated into this fake incest crap.

    1. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It isn't fake incest, it is just incest-related tags on the website that have become popular.

      It isn't intended to imply actual incest, or videos that involve roleplaying incest; just like, "teen" means "looks under 35" or at least "all wrinkles covered with makeup." Everybody knows that thirty-teen is not a real number.

      Also on the internet, "technology news" doesn't mean "news about technology," it means "business news about companies with consumer electronics or computer-related products." Same thing; probably even the same marketing firms!

    2. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's real content out there. With people who clearly look related; people who show government IDs to the camera; and lots of very illegal stuff where the relationship is blindingly obvious.

    3. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stepbrother/sister/mother/father/son/daughter is not incest.

      Poor judgment, kinky, certainly. But not incest.

    4. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You seem to have fallen for the illusion. Implies a related kink on your side. How this actually works is by selecting actors from a large database that look similar but are unrelated and then augmenting the illusion with professional theater make-up and acting skills, and in the case of IDs, Photoshop.

      Incidentally, the taboo on incest stems from it generating genetic problems if done too long (several generations needed today), no other reason. Of course this assumes adults and informed consent given freely on all parts. And, of course, the taboo is from a time were no effective contraception was available.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Altrag · · Score: 1

      fallen for the illusion

      Its not an illusion. All reports suggest that searches for incest porn are up, and of course because sites tend to use trending type algorithms to at least some degree when making up their suggestions lists, you end up with incest bubbling up as a suggestion.

      There has actually been quite articles about the phenomena and most of them tend to favor the "its Game of Throne's fault," if they care to hazard a guess at all for the cause of the shift. Though even before GoT you could start seeing hints of it in mainstream TV.. kind of along the line of how homosexuality was hinted at here and there in 80s and 90s TV before breaking out completely in the 2000s. There was two or three shows I'd noticed at the time that all seemed to include incest plots of some sort but the only one that I can still recall is Nip/Tuck, probably because they made it a multi-episode subplot.

      the taboo on incest stems from it generating genetic problems (...,) no other reason

      There's a strong chance that its actually engrained in our psychology actually. Check out the Westermarck effect. So even with 100% reliable birth control, there's a good chance that incest would still touch our squick. Its only hypothetical (not really morally cool to test that one in a lab!) and doesn't explain everything (for example, it explains why kids might not have sexual interest in their parents.. but doesn't explain why the parents also tend to not have sexual interest in their children for the most part.)

      And as always, keep in mind that there's a significant difference between fantasizing about something and actually doing that thing. I suspect most people who want to watch Jaime and Cersei get it on, or Gal Gadot and whoever her stepbrother is or whatever other pairing.. quite likely have no interest in boning their own siblings ("man I'd nail my sister if she looked like Cersei!".. probably you wouldn't. If she did, you'd likely just not be as interested in Cersei either.)

    6. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With adults, what you describe *could* only be undertaken by major studies. Your claim that major studies find similar looking actors, then proceed to film with awful amateur production quality, fail to include 2257 notices, and commit illegal forgery, seems awfully unlikely.
      When we're talking about videos of incest involving people substantially underage, there's just no way they're finding lookalike kids for their CP.
      It's not a personal kink of mine, I'm just pointing out it exists.

    7. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      It isn't intended to imply actual incest, or videos that involve roleplaying incest;

      What? Yes, it absolutely is intended to imply videos that involve roleplaying incest. You really do have to wade through stacks of incest porn to get to anything else right now. I have only conducted an informal study, but it seems to be dominated by aunt-nephew, then sister-brother, then uncle-niece. It implies something fairly disturbing about our culture that this is what's blowing up, especially since the last trend to blow up in porn was MILFs. So let's see, mothers I want to fuck, incest porn... a sick, sad percentage of pornhounds clearly want to fuck their mom.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think it's just a sign that the era of free and unlimited porn is causing porn itself to lose luster, and they're just going after weirder and weirder fetishes to try to keep people interested in what amounts to the same mundane sex that rehashes the same sex positions. Shuffle around the various positions and then the obligatory cumshot.

      It was luridly appealing when it was uncommon, now it's just banal. And so much is made with so little creativity or passion that you have to attach increasingly weird tags to it to attract viewers, otherwise people are just tired of it.

      What's funny is I've seen the same videos tagged multi-posted with different tags. One tag says "incest" the other says "teen with older guy". I mean, it's all the same with different titles.

      WRT incest, I'm sure it's one of the socially "prohibited" fetishes with broad appeal. There are probably enough people who have thought about sex with a relative (close or distant) that you can make find people willing to watch either because they've had the idea or they're just bored with everything else.

    9. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      All of these are entirely fake.

      Actually you'll find all produced porn is fake. Most of it is based around what looks good on what camera angle and orgasms are often faked as the positions do nothing, typically for either actor (see how many videos require a cut before the money shot, often while the guy goes and beats himself off after the disappointing sex)

      These days I find more stuff I like from low ranking amateures on MyDirtyHobby rather than any actual production studio.

    10. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It isn't fake incest, it is just incest-related tags on the website that have become popular.

      Actually I agree with the GP, there has been a huge rise in roleplaying incest of late for any video involving hotter older actors.

    11. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by gweihir · · Score: 1

      "Incest" does not imply CP. CP is illegal for good reasons. And nobody doing CP will show any IDs in it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is also the pheromone angle: The more similar the genetics, the less well somebody smells when regarded as a sexual partner. This is a known mechanism and usually it works. Sometimes it does not. So the reason for the taboo is the genetic problems it causes, but actual biology has mechanisms to reduce it as well, just because it is a significant evolutionary advantage to not produce offspring from too similar parents. Psychology, on the other hand, seems to not actually be involved that much.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get so stressed. It's just a fad, a bandwagon that they have to jump on right now. Be patient, there's still plenty of other material for you (older videos if nothing else), and wait for it to pass.

      (That and ignore the tags. 90% of the time there's no actual dialog suggesting there's incest going on - it's just a tag.)

    14. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, dill weed, those aren't stacks of "incest porn," they're random porn that has incest-related words placed in the description by the aggregators.

      I know it is really hard to read the words and look at the pictures at the same time, but if you manage it you'll see what I mean. In fact, the same video will be listed as incest, ex-gf, strangers, swingers, and 5 other things. The tags will also mostly list acts not in the video.

      The videos don't match the descriptions. This is not news.

    15. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I just wish they'd do some A/B testing with it instead of throwing everything at the wall, and then saying it for years without asking if any of it stuck!

      I don't think it has to do with broad appeal of the fetish, I think it has to do with attracting the eyeball to ridiculous words, same as any other clickbait, and then offering a random video. The video that is playing often has more appeal than videos not currently playing, so it works out for them.

    16. Re:Incest Porn is Fake Sh!t by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I know it is really hard to read the words and look at the pictures at the same time, but if you manage it you'll see what I mean.

      The very common sites I somewhat commonly visit tell a different story. The videos listed as being incest porn overwhelmingly do have an incest theme. Maybe you visit really shitty sites where videos are poorly classified. Sorry about your lack of web skills.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Like which site? by cyberman27 · · Score: 1

    So you said this "porn" existed on some fake site? Like which site? I mean their are so many sites, like which one specifically?

  15. Rise of AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So Terminator got it wrong. It's through AI porn.

    1. Re:Rise of AI by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Porn always leads technology.

      Followed by video games.

      Then the military.

      Finally the rest of the world catches on.

      (Military may move up the list a bit if the technology has an obvious and immediate application for killing people easier.)

  16. Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen several interviews of Gal Gadot; she seems like a genuinely nice young woman, no guile or fakeness about her. Why does anyone have to do sick shit like this? Are they actual sociopaths or something?

    I see that in the future, there will have to be legal precedent stating that people's likenesses are their property in perpetuity, with stiff penalties for someone using it without express written permission.

    1. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "stiff penalties"
      I see what you did there

    2. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've seen several interviews of Gal Gadot; she seems like a genuinely nice young woman,...

      My understanding is that she's very racist - at least in the same sense that the Nazis were racist (i.e. one could quibble about whether Germans, Jews, Palestinians, etc. are separate races). But anyway she seems to be solidly in favor of discrimination and segregation.

    3. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      seems like a genuinely nice young woman

      Yeah, maybe if you think Apartheid is nice.

    4. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with anything, really? If she (or anyone) is racist, does that make it okay to use their likeness in such a sick and twisted way, for someone else's fucked-up sexual gratification? Nothing I said changes; anyone who does this is a sick fucker who needs to be curb-stomped, or at least sued for using someones likeness in a sick and fucked-up way. If you want to go on Twitter or Facebook or write an op-ed to a national publication and accuse the woman of being racist, then that's one thing, but this is something else entirely.

    5. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I've seen several interviews of Gal Gadot; she seems like a genuinely nice young woman, no guile or fakeness about her. Why does anyone have to do sick shit like this?

      Because she won't do it for real.

    6. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to write an op-ed. It's well known among people who care about such things.

      There were plenty of articles about it when the first Wonder Woman movie came out - which is why I didn't watch it. If I wanted to give my money to racists then I'd just donate to the KKK directly.

      Anyway, next time I see some Hitler themed-porn on the internet, I'll let you know so you can protect his image. :)

    7. Re:Why do this to her? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Because she won't do it for real.

      You're sure about that?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seems like a genuinely nice young woman

      Yeah, maybe if you think Apartheid is nice.

      Actually, I do think apartheid is nice. Jerusalem belonged to the Jews first. Waaaay back when King David ruled. The mooslems obviously would have objected at the time...had Mohammad been invented yet. But that wasn't for another few hundred years.

    9. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're for giving native americans america back?

    10. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your understanding doesn't understand her at all.

    11. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I do think apartheid is nice. Jerusalem belonged to the Jews first.

      I've got an ancestor who came over from England with the Pilgrims. I've been thinking lately that I should get together with some other Pilgrim descendants and assert our Right of Return to England - kicking out whatever riffraff happens to be living there in England now, of course.

    12. Re:Why do this to her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Jerusalem belonged to the Jews first. Waaaay back when King David ruled.

      Excuse me, but I thought King David captured Jerusalem circa 1010 BCE so it must have belonged to somebody before that, right? It doesn't say David built the fucking city.

    13. Re:Why do this to her? by gravewax · · Score: 1

      ummmm you do realise Jerusalem existed for centuries prior to David's invasion of Jerusalem. regardless it is fucked up that anybody considers events that occurred thousands of years before anyone alive today was born as relavent.

  17. What? by glenebob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This article seems to imply that there are people who are surprised by this. People actually didn't see this coming years ago?

    1. Re:What? by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 3, Funny

      This article seems to imply that there are people who are surprised by this. People actually didn't see this coming years ago?

      True, but now the time has cum

    2. Re:What? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      No, people wished for this years ago.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and so have I?

    4. Re:What? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The supply of morons is the only infinite resource the human race has. You even find people in this very discussion thread that are surprised by this and ones that think this can be suppressed by laws.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  18. ALL TIME LOWS! BeauHD IS A MILLENIAL MORON! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot has stooped to this? For shame.

  19. I think I should create and trademark by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    The Virtual Actors Guild. Your characters need to bw fully registered and licensed and of corse you need to have your union dues fully paid.

      Because once porn has pioneered this technology, real actors are going to quickly be in muchj lower demand.

    1. Re:I think I should create and trademark by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      The Virtual Actors Guild. Your characters need to bw fully registered and licensed and of corse you need to have your union dues fully paid.

      The Virtual Actors Guild? ... The VAG? I’ve been trying to figure out if, given the context of the article, that was a deliberate joke or not!

    2. Re:I think I should create and trademark by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      The Virtual Actors Guild. Your characters need to bw fully registered and licensed and of corse you need to have your union dues fully paid.

      The Virtual Actors Guild? ... The VAG? I’ve been trying to figure out if, given the context of the article, that was a deliberate joke or not!

      Some of both. The Virtual Actors Guild on the Internet National Agency would be a dead giveaway...

  20. They aren't doing it in VR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let people act out their fantasies in VR rather than have them do it in real life. If it doesn't hurt anyone, then why is it anyone's business?

    Because the sick twisted fucks aren't doing it in VR; they're doing it using time machines. When they come back, they tell us "Rouge One" is the name of a movie where they're from, but in our universe it's "Rogue One." Don't you see? Someone went back in time and stepped on a butterfly.

    If they'd stick to fucking Tyrannosaurus Rexen in VR, we wouldn't be having this problem, but they're messing with history and it's just a matter of time until someone kills Hitler and then we won't have a space program. "Doesn't hurt anyone" my ass.

  21. Rouge one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that the red-light version of Rogue One?

  22. "Rouge" One? by ToTheStars · · Score: 5, Funny

    I see the editors have been cursed by the Rouge Angles of Satin!

    I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

    1. Re:"Rouge" One? by sysrammer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nice. You forgot "swallow your prize and accept the fax", though.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    2. Re:"Rouge" One? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Wars Rouge One:

      http://img.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Star-Wars-Rouge-One.jpg

    3. Re:"Rouge" One? by Brickwall · · Score: 1

      Nice one, Ricky. But you forgot to say "I toadaso".

      Shithawk.

      --
      What was once true, is no longer so
    4. Re:"Rouge" One? by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Take a bow. Bravo!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  23. Source Material Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, somebody forget the source link. ;)

    1. Re:Source Material Link? by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Slashdot editors can't link their way out of a wet paper bag.

    2. Re:Source Material Link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to type with one hand.

  24. Non-news ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

    ... and that should make everyone nervous.

    Nervous is OK as long as it also makes people horny.

    That's the point of porn.

    As for "fake," it doesn't matter as long as it's satisfying. There are lots of role-playing sites.

    And as for "fake," as in "fabricated evidence," detecting "fake." is within the scope of digital forensics.

    Let's file this with Hawking's AI phobia, alright?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Non-news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      p>As for "fake," it doesn't matter as long as it's satisfying. There are lots of role-playing sites.

      I sort of thought this was done against the "participants'" will. There are all those issues
      with morality, you know. Or with a nick like your's, perhaps you don't?

      And as for "fake," as in "fabricated evidence," detecting "fake." is within the scope of digital forensics.

      When every kid on the internet can do what was done now, the digital forensics necessarily becomes a much more delicate task. This means that if we can't ourselves detect whether something is fake or not, we must have a much higher trust in those who have power over us (i.e. journalists and police) in the future.

      When aunt Maggie has seen you giving a blowjob to a pig, there is no unseeing that. No matter how much the 'digital forensics whiz kids' tell her it was fake.
      They probably won't be telling her anything, though. They'll be too busy with cases that don't "make people horny".

    2. Re:Non-news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, I thought the technique was pretty clever.

      1. Obtain images or target celebrity

      2. Distort obtained images

      3. Train network to restore original face from distorted images

      4. Run video through network, network will treat face of the porn actor as just another distorted image

      Genius!

    3. Re:Non-news ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, it's at least 2-3 years away from undetectable faking. Clearly nothing to worry about there.

      Unless of course someone already exists who can do it better, and what are the chances of that?

      </sarcasm>

  25. What's to get upset about?? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

    Long before AI was ever an idea in someone's mind, Edgar Allen Poe wrote : Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. This idea is even more applicable to this fake porn. Who the heck is going to believe it if it even YOU! Just blame it on the AI (or the dog).https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/252780-believe-nothing-you-hear-and-only-one-half-that-you

  26. The ultimate get out of jail free card by jader3rd · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now once someone produces a tape of Donald Trump have sex with Russian prostitutes while married, he'll be able to claim that deepfakes created it and is innocent of everything. This will be the greatest tool for people weaseling out of video evidence.

    1. Re:The ultimate get out of jail free card by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't be a crime in the US, because he was in Russia at the time. So evidence only needs to be good enough for PR.

      The question is "Did he do it?", and I really don't care. I despise him for things he admits, so anything additional doesn't really matter...unless it can be pinned on him as a crime. Even then...would I really prefer Pence? Spiro Agnew used to be called Nixon's insurance policy.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:The ultimate get out of jail free card by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah, you lack imagination, better to make a video where Trump is the russian prostitute, hold my beer...

  27. Re:Niggers and Jews by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    I hate them all. And I hate Mexicans. And Catholics and Mormons. I'm European. I hate anybody who isn't ANGLO SAXON.

    So put on VR goggles and make them all look like Anglo-Saxons. I'd prefer a deferential Oriental personality with a Black Super-size-BBW look put on it, and I'm Anglo-Saxon; does that mean I'm strange?

  28. We're *all* screwed by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Good! It'll probably be the first time for a lot of you.

    Be careful with your replies. My son reads slashdot and posts here.

    1. Re:We're *all* screwed by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Your poor son...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  29. judging a picture by its pixels alone by epine · · Score: 1

    It's about time we stopped judging a picture by its pixels alone.

    We already have the situation in art and archaeology that nothing is considered real without provenance. Perhaps provenance will become easier to fake. Never fear, for this problem, there's always the blockchain.

    The far more interesting aspect of this is the impact on trafficking in child pornography.

    What are we going to do? How does one legally demonstrate the apparent age of a digital model? Connect a jury of thirteen convicted paedophiles to brain-scan augmented plethysmographs? (Could be a messy conviction.)

    If the model renders in real time, there could be user-adjustable dials (think the original Terminator). Does the generated image self-destruct if the user adjusts the dials to a combined setting of less than 20 mR?

    Jessica is renowned as one of the most well known sex symbols in animation. She is also well known for her movie quote "I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."

    [*] mR = milli-Rabbits; see Helen

    1. Re:judging a picture by its pixels alone by laughing_badger · · Score: 1

      The far more interesting aspect of this is the impact on trafficking in child pornography.

      There is evidence to indicate that completely simulated CP should not be illegal. It would cut demand for the real stuff that involves harm, and I recall seeing a study that access to porn decreased the likelihood of offenders reoffending.

      You'd probably never get that past of politician though.

      --
      Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    2. Re:judging a picture by its pixels alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The far more interesting aspect of this is the impact on trafficking in child pornography. What are we going to do? How does one legally demonstrate the apparent age of a digital model?

      This will most likely not have an impact. Images depicting the underage in sexually explicit situations is illegal regardless if those images are of real children, or computer derived (or even human animated). People have already been arrested for possession of hentai depicting underaged children (ie: Kite).

      Additionally, there are models that appear underage, and the producers need to keep records of their actual age to avoid arrest, though how it matters when the appearance is enough I don't understand.

    3. Re:judging a picture by its pixels alone by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      And prostitution reduces sexual assaults in general; it's almost as if basic urges drive people to satisfy them. It's uncomfortable for many people to think about, and when they get uncomfortable they turn to 'ban the evil thing'.

      I personally am not particularly comfortable with the idea of child porn, but if there is a reputable study out there indicating that simulated child porn reduces the abuse of real children... I'd be evil to oppose it, wouldn't I?

      I'd rather have a potential sex predator masturbating than assaulting a kid.

  30. so? by Yurka · · Score: 1

    People used to believe photographic evidence (which came to existfairly recently). Then came Photoshop; someone with enough patience is now capable of faking one single frame very convincingly. Photos are no longer believed; world yet to end.
    People have a habit of believing video evidence (which came to exist even more recently). Then came AI; someone with enough patience will soon be capable of faking a clip very convincingly. Videos will no longer be believed; world is expected to survive.

    --
    I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
    1. Re:so? by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      you're hilarious, various tricks for creating "fake photographs" are 200+ years old. Putting people that weren't present into a photo, changing the location, extreme touchup to change appearance, creating what we might call fantasy / sci fi effects...all old hat. Faked photogaphss have tricked experts in the courtroom too.

      "Then came photoshop", pfffffft. Get off my lawn, kid.

    2. Re:so? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Making fakes is easier now, and will continue to get easier.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Making fakes is easier now, and will continue to get easier.

      Perhaps, maybe, according to some measures, but at the same time forensic techniques improve and people get more sceptical, so I'm not sure that deceiving people is getting any easier.

    4. Re:so? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Then came Photoshop

      Did you ever question how tools in Photoshop like, "cut" "paste" (literally cutting and pasting negatives) "dodge" "burn" (literally blanking out or intensifying light during exposure) got their name?

      We've been Photoshopping since the early 1900s. Have a picture of a man juggling his own head which predates the world war: https://www.metmuseum.org/exhi...

    5. Re:so? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      always been easy to do.

      fooling experts is still hard, photoshop is NOT the way to do that

  31. For research purposes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A link to the video in question really would be helpful

  32. Because no Portman and Grits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm surprise the first thing they modeled wasn't that.

  33. We're all screwed? By AI Porn? by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm.....some people might be looking forward to that!

  34. Finally, bad fanfic can be televised! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally, Kirk/Spok can be televised! Beam me up, Scotty!

  35. TensorFlow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear it is for ...deep... learning.

  36. Re: Niggers and Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get lost russki

  37. Re:Hey Al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. Franken is fucking jewish you Trumptardian buffoon.

  38. THIS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    THIS sounds exactly like Ajit Pai's arguments about net neutrality to me...

  39. Is real porn better? by ET3D · · Score: 1

    In this case it's still real porn, just with modifications, but if we do get fully virtual and convincing porn, isn't that better than having a porn industry with real people?

    1. Re:Is real porn better? by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      There will come a day when you can use an AR headset and issue voice commands that will have the porn scenario of your choice overlaid on your environment in fully realistic detail.

      I suspect you'll have to use pirate software to use non-porn celebrities in your porn fantasies, though. And there will be the same physical limitations on tactile feedback that we deal with today that will limit the realism and mostly leave you as a voyeur.

      It'll still be cheaper than a fully functional sex bot, though.

  40. Sexy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon we ll see 3po having anal sex with r2d2

  41. Machine learning algorithm by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    "machine learning" is already so overused that it is essentially meaningless. Translation here: they used a computer program

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  42. Re:Niggers and Jews by Brickwall · · Score: 1

    "I'd prefer a deferential Oriental personality with a Black Super-size-BBW look put on it, and I'm Anglo-Saxon; does that mean I'm strange?"

    Yes.

    --
    What was once true, is no longer so
  43. Re:Niggers and Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate them all. And I hate Mexicans. And Catholics and Mormons. I'm European. I hate anybody who isn't ANGLO SAXON.

    It's so sad to hear that you are such a pathetic excuse for a human being, not worth the skin you're made of. I feel bad for you.

  44. Personally I find this terrifying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not the technology, the technology is great - I really want to see the video at some point to see how accurate it looks - what terrifies me is that whether this technology is used nefariously or not people are stupid enough - likely the same people that think you can be spied on through your microwave and that chemtrails are mind controlling us will start to point to everything as a fake.

  45. Re: Easy to bypass by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Just insert the doctored video into the queue that it got told contained only good videos.

  46. Side benefit to actual porn stars... by thedarb · · Score: 1

    "Oh no, baby. That isn't me! It's a fake!" will be the mantra of x-porn stars everywhere.

    --
    This sig intentionally left blank.
  47. Re: Species by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    I am a Ninja Zombie Pirate. I investigate the suffering of sentient beings.

  48. Re:Niggers and Jews by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, but 99% sure you aren't Anglo-Saxon (ps the Angles and the Saxons were racially the same thing anyway)

  49. Good news by jon3k · · Score: 1

    It's not really that great at this point. Here is a link to the deepfakes submitted posts on reddit.