Slashdot Mirror
Someone Used a Deep Learning AI To Perfectly Insert Harrison Ford Into "Solo: A Star Wars Story" (gizmodo.com)
Andrew Liszewski, writing for io9: Casting anyone other than Harrison Ford in the role of Han Solo just feels like sacrilege, but since Ford is now 76 years old, playing a younger version of himself would be all but impossible. Or at least impossible if you rely on the standard Hollywood de-aging tricks like makeup and CG. Artificial intelligence, it turns out, does a pretty amazing job at putting Ford back into the role of Solo. The YouTube channel "derpfakes" has been posting videos that demonstrate the impressive, and at times frightening, capabilities of image processing using artificial intelligence. Using a process called deep learning, an AI analyzes a large collection of photos of a given person, creating a comprehensive database of them in any almost any position and pose. It then uses that database to intelligently perform an automatic face replacement on a source clip, in this case replacing actor Alden Ehrenreich's face with Harrison Ford's.
It's far from perfect, and the bitrate on that video is abysmal. If he tried this on Blu-ray footage and kept the quality up, Harrison Ford's face would stick out like a sore... face.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
no not perfectly at all
Can they erase Jar-Jar? Or replace Hayden Christensen with an actual wooden post?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Wouldn't Elon Musk be better as a Bond Villain? Billionaire, running numerous secret projects, capable of launching stuff into space, carefully built populist public image... could easily be Max Zorin, Elliot Carver, or Gustav Graves.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Using them in sexual videos without their consent should be considered sexual assult.
I'm all for protecting people from sexual assault and harm, but really? This is what you call assault? Let me guess, if someone looks at you and you don't want them to, you consider it sexual assault. This is the problem with calling everyone Hitler, or a racist, mysognist, pedophile, etc. After a while those words have no meaning and you have to amp it up even further.
How about we call it misuse of someone's likeness, or just plain rude and obnoxious. If there are laws against this, then they should be charged. But let's not go full tilt stupid.
Nope. He's right. These words have specific legal meanings. You can't have "assault" without physical harm. Otherwise you might as well call it "rape" and be done with it.
Now if you had said "sexual harassment" or "defamation", you might have had a point.
Using them in sexual videos without their consent should be considered sexual assult.
That would be contrary to the plain definition of assault: "make a physical attack on" and even the extended legal (in some jurisdictions) definition fo assault: "a credible threat or attempt to cause battery" (where battery refers to the actual bodily contact). I'm not arguing against the idea that using someone's likeness in photos or videos without their consent being illegal, just the idea that it be labeled as "assault." Otherwise, this would dilute the definition of assault. Perhaps someone could come up with a more appropriate label apart from borrowing one from a different kind illegal act.
Ok, here's the problem. I have a neighbor that's on the sex offender database. I asked him about it.
Turns out, he was caught peeing an an alley next to a bar. Being a little gross, but harming nobody. The cop booked him for indecent exposure, and it snowballed from there.
All of a sudden, there's no line between a rapist and a drunk kid. Do you see the problem with labeling everything as "Sexual Assault"?
Your daughter gets banged like a screen door every Thursday at the truck stop.
With this kind of parental upbringing you are showing he'd probably voluntarily stay away. People with messed up childhoods are often too difficult to be worth the hassle.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This kind of deepfake could fall under libel laws, which include both written information and pictures. Libel is certainly different from a physical attack, and is clearly a type of harm.
Lose = not win
Wouldn't defamation of character be a better charge for this?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Using a person's likeness in photos or videos without the person's consent should be illegal.
To a certain extent, it is. Little fan works like this might go under the radar, but Lucasfilm, even though they own all the footage of Harrison Ford from the Star Wars days, would need to get permission from Ford to insert him into a new movie, just like they needed from Peter Cushing's estate to get Cushing inserted into Rogue One.
Many of these rules date back to Back to the Future Part II, where test footage of Crispin Glover (George McFly) from the first movie was used along with actor Jeffrey Weissman who used chin, nose, and cheek prosthetics to appear as Glover. Glover sued, and now the SGA has clauses in their contracts forbidding the use of an actor's likeness without permission. That's why when there's an actor replacement for a role, very little effort is done to make the new actor look like the old character. If you make the "new" character look too much like the old one, there can be legal action if this wasn't already worked out with the old actor.