Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Come Out With Yet Another Unnerving, New Deepfake Method (gizmodo.com)

Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have figured out a new method to create deepfakes -- videos that make it look like someone said or did something they didn't say or do. They're usually manipulated using machine learning and have been a big problem for porn sites, as they can be used to create fake celebrity pornographic videos or revenge porn. According to Gizmodo, the researchers "have figured out a way to automatically transfer the 'style' of one person to another." From the report: "For instance, Barack Obama's style can be transformed into Donald Trump," the researchers wrote in the description of a YouTube video highlighting the outcome of this method. The video shows the facial expressions of John Oliver transferred to both Stephen Colbert and an animated frog, from Martin Luther King, Jr. to Obama, and from Obama to Trump. The researchers describe the process in a paper as an "unsupervised data-driven approach." Like other methods of developing deepfakes, this one uses artificial intelligence. The paper doesn't exclusively deal in translating talking style and facial movements from one human to another -- it also includes examples with blooming flowers, sunrises and sunsets, and clouds and wind.

For the person-to-person deepfakes, the researchers cite examples of how certain mannerisms can be transferred, including "John Oliver's dimple while smiling, the shape of mouth characteristic of Donald Trump, and the facial mouth lines and smile of Stephen Colbert." The team used videos available to the public to develop these deepfakes. It's easy to see how these techniques might be applied in a more innocuous way...

54 comments

  1. More Innocuous? by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    It's easy to see how these techniques might be applied in a more innocuous way...

    No, I really have trouble seeing a less innocuous application than making John Oliver look like an animated frog. Not even using the example in TFA. It's the less innocuous things that concern. I suspect this was intended as a throwaway line to point at positives before transitioning to the apocalyptic.

    1. Re:More Innocuous? by sheramil · · Score: 2

      I suspect it was intended to include the blue-ribbon word "innocuous" without actually understanding its correct use, and should have been "far less innocuous, and potentially damaging".

    2. Re:More Innocuous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to see how these techniques might be applied in a more innocuous way...

      No, I really have trouble seeing a less innocuous application than making John Oliver look like an animated frog. Not even using the example in TFA. It's the less innocuous things that concern. I suspect this was intended as a throwaway line to point at positives before transitioning to the apocalyptic.

      Maybe they mean "insidious"?

    3. Re:More Innocuous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to see how these techniques might be applied in a more innocuous way...

      No, I really have trouble seeing a less innocuous application than making John Oliver look like an animated frog. Not even using the example in TFA. It's the less innocuous things that concern. I suspect this was intended as a throwaway line to point at positives before transitioning to the apocalyptic.

      so video footage is no longer evidence, obviously.... now could they please use this tech to continue TV and Movie series that was stopped because some of the original actors died?

    4. Re:More Innocuous? by Calydor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe now we'll get more Firefly!

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    5. Re:More Innocuous? by gsslay · · Score: 2

      More like the person who wrote it doesn't know what it means.

    6. Re:More Innocuous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It’s easy to see how these techniques might be applied in a more insidious way. The example of John Oliver and the cartoon frog, for instance...

      proves that all frogs are in danger of being mimicked. No frog, including Kermit, is safe anymore from humans making them say things that they, themselves, would not have otherwise.

    7. Re:More Innocuous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Can we get some new episodes of Stargate with the original actors. Plus some more Sarah Connor Chronicles?

    8. Re: More Innocuous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo who died in Sarah Connor chronicles.

      My RuR , Metropolis, fir the age to come is BSG/caprica, Sarah Connor, and dollhouse

  2. Less is more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean LESS innocuous.

  3. But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    John Oliver is an animated frog.

  4. Politicians are all the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You couldn't trust a word any of them said... way before AI was ever on the drawing board.

  5. believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the deepfake looks pretty poor if you actually look at the video. It's all twisty and distorted in strange ways, but somehow it seems ok when compared with the actual regular video next to it.

    no doubt mimicry like this is coming, but this isn't quite the real thing yet

    I think people will use it as a prop when claming other real video is faked though. They will say the latest scandal against their group has been edited and deepfaked without any way to prove it, and those who want to believe will continue to believe

    1. Re: believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A skilled human can fix the AI mistakes for a more convincing result.

    2. Re: believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but that is hardly a new thing.
      In Jurassic Park they manually added the actress face on the stunt doubles body and that was 25 years ago.

      For political reasons there is enough money involved to get lookalike actors to stage the event and do a manual touchup of the footage to compensate for the lookalikes not being perfect.

      Say that you are a mining company and wants to be able to dig a bit in a national park.
      The money involved is so large that making a couple of faked videos to get rid of opposition is a rounding error in your other costs.

      The thing that makes deepfakes different is that it is cheap.
      That makes it viable for porn.

  6. Let's lose the adjectives by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Do we need to be told if something is "unnerving"?

    Headlines don't need adjectives. We don't need to be told what to think about something that is being reported. We are able to make up our own minds.

    Just give us the information. We'll form our own opinions.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      You just failed out of journalism school!

    2. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      way to miss the point

    3. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just give us the information. We'll form our own opinions.

      You must be new to the internet.

    4. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      I see you don't know how to do proper journalism.

      "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
      -- Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't believe what happened next after you asked that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by tsa · · Score: 1

      Ah, now I know why I never watch CBS.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re: Let's lose the adjectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you inject emotions into the news you need to get the fuck out of journalism at gunpoint. FACTS ONLY, ALL THE FACTS.

    8. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what this is about. Somebody wants to be able to use this technology for their own uses while convincing everyone else that this is evil.

      Is that not correct Mr Putin?

    9. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey!! Fox News watcher here!! Speak for yourself. Now go fuck off!!

    10. Re:Let's lose the adjectives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you're not Boris.

  7. CROOKED Hillary tells more LIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I actually said was "Grab â(TM)em by the pussy. You can do anything."

    And to be fair, I also called Billy Bush a "pussy" which of course he is.

    Sad.

    @realDonaldTrump

  8. Deepfakes or Facerig? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://store.steampowered.com/app/274920/FaceRig/ Congratulations on applying existing technology, golf clap for Carnegie Mellon?

  9. Off go the parachutes... by IHTFISP · · Score: 1

    Big Brother is no longer just watching: Big Brother is now taking direct action.
    Be afraid. Be very afraid. ;-)

    Just sayin'.

    --
    Error: NSE - No Signature Error
  10. The Clock is Ticking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The deepfake method needs to be perfected before the "pee tape" released so that The Donald can claim its not actually him in the video.

    1. Re:The Clock is Ticking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was something that the last administration did. Some one must have done something particularly heinous to burn this kind of capability.

    2. Re:The Clock is Ticking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words Boris, your team is *hoping* that you can use it to fake a pee tape so you can outrage the Dems.
      Here's a clue: the Dems don't need a pee tape. They're outraged all on their own because of their own bubbles.

      What's more interesting to me Boris, is why you voluntarily work for such an obvious fascist. It's clearly not highly paid. Do you believe that dictatorship is good for the soul?

  11. Re:Old News by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    But you can't use deepfakes to fake Trump, you need shallowfakes.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  12. The results are obviously manipulated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usual hyperbole over this - the images are clearly manipulated and you would need to be pretty dim witted to think the fake was real.

  13. Let's lose these nazi faggot Trump traitors IRL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://gawker.com/5814150/roger-ailes-secret-nixon-era-blueprint-for-fox-news + https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-roger-ailes-built-the-fox-news-fear-factory-244652/ = Faux Faguettes trying to redefine treason

  14. revenge porn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's not what revenge porn means

  15. OK by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    Just give us the information. We'll form our own opinions.

    And that's OK.

  16. An Illustration of Talking Heads... by buravirgil · · Score: 1

    does not convince me of a proof of concept as much as a FUD campaign to attract attention to its ancillary claims of assisting film direction and self-driving cars and the latest battleground of chip makers.

    --
    Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
  17. Re:About as egregious as BeauHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bob Mueller's coming for your traitor, cuntychops.

  18. Interesting, no audio with the linked video by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

    But I assume that would be fairly straightforward once they've done the video...

  19. Only solution to deepfakes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is to get back to deep thoughts.

  20. I bet you always click "one weird tip" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, this cheapens the look of the site and attempts to steer the reader and bait clicks. Tabloid style journalism, surely you meant.

  21. hm by nasch · · Score: 1

    If you watch the video, it's really not some creepy omg Donald Trump looks like Obama now! It just makes the altered video look a little strange and obviously doctored. I would say nothing to worry about.

  22. Re:Old News by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    Perhaps unsurprisingly I read this as "deepFLAKE" instead.

    --
    -
  23. Really, You Can't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... Barack Obama's style can be transformed into Donald Trump"

    No, really you cannot. I mean technically you probably can, but you cannot in any other context. Giving Rump some style and class via Obama would be an Uncanny Valley experience, akin to watching an elephant dance. The miracle isn't that the elephant dances well, the miracle is that the elephant dances at all!

  24. I'm bad and going straight to hell for this, but.. by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

    The schadenfreude is strong. I'm having real difficulty feeling sorry for the people who are going to be the most upset about this: Politicians and celebrities. I'm a little worried someone might try to use the tech to start a war, but ask me to spend one microsecond feeling sorry for some celebrity for being pasted onto a porn star, and I'm failing utterly.