Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the max-headroom-lives dept.

This thought provoking and somewhat frightening article in Vanity Fair describes the state of play of technology which has the potential to warp our world-view far beyond anything before.

At corporations and universities across the country, incipient technologies appear likely to soon obliterate the line between real and fake. Or, in the simplest of terms, advancements in audio and video technology are becoming so sophisticated that they will be able to replicate real news—real TV broadcasts, for instance, or radio interviews—in unprecedented, and truly indecipherable, ways. One research paper published last year by professors at Stanford University and the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg demonstrated how technologists can record video of someone talking and then change their facial expressions in real time. The professors' technology could take a news clip of, say, Vladimir Putin, and alter his facial expressions in real time in hard-to-detect ways. In fact, in this video demonstrating the technology, the researchers show how they did manipulate Putin's facial expressions and responses, among those of other people, too.

This is eerie, to say the least. But it's only one part of the future fake-news menace. Other similar technologies have been in the works in universities and research labs for years, but they have never really pulled off what computers can do today. Take for example "The Digital Emily Project," a study in which researchers created digital actors that could be used in lieu of real people. For the past several years, the results have been crude and easily detectable as digital re-creations. But technologies that are now used by Hollywood and the video-game industry have largely rendered digital avatars almost indecipherable from real people. (Go and watch the latest Star Wars to see if you can tell which actors are real and which are computer-generated. I bet you can't tell the difference.) You could imagine some political group utilizing that technology to create a fake hidden video clip of President Trump telling Rex Tillerson that he plans to drop a nuclear bomb on China. The velocity with which news clips spread across social media would also mean that the administration would have frightfully little time to respond before a fake-news story turned into an international crisis.

Audio advancements may be just as harrowing. At its annual developer's conference, in November, Adobe showed off a new product that has been nicknamed "Photoshop for audio." The product allows users to feed about ten to 20 minutes of someone's voice into the application and then allows them to type words that are expressed in that exact voice. The resultant voice, which is comprised of the person's phonemes, or the distinct units of sound that distinguish one word from another in each language, doesn't sound even remotely computer-generated or made up. It sounds real. This sort of technology could facilitate the ability to feed one of Trump's interviews or stump speeches into the application, and then type sentences or paragraphs in his spoken voice. You could very easily imagine someone creating fake audio of Trump explaining how he dislikes Mike Pence, or how he lied about his taxes, or that he did indeed enjoy that alleged "golden shower" in the Russian hotel suite. Then you could circulate that audio around the Internet as a comment that was overheard on a hot microphone. Worse, you could imagine a scenario in which someone uses Trump's voice to call another world leader and threaten some sort of violent action. And perhaps worst of all, as the quality of imitation gets better and better, it will become increasingly difficult to discern between what is real behavior and what isn't.

Regardless of what ideology you subscribe to, what politician you support, what media source you visit; you fundamentally must be able to trust the information you see. If there is no way, barring forensic analysis, to tell truth or falsehood, how can we know anything? Plausible lies could literally be the end of the world.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:06PM

    by Justin Case (4239) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:06PM (#461168) Journal

    you fundamentally must be able to trust the information you see.

    Why start now?

    how can we know anything?

    We can't. Deal with it.

    The search for absolute Truth has always seemed to me to be a religious thing. In a world of chaos, $BOOK has the infallible answer.

    But this recently-emerging term "fake news" seems to me, well, fake. You don't put a qualifier in front of something unless you want to distinguish it from the rest of the group. The fact that we say "red light" implies that there are other possible colors of light, else we would just call it "light".

    So... "fake news" suggests that there exists somewhere any other kind of news. Not in my personal experience. Every newsworthy event I've experienced in person has been grossly misreported. As just one example, I was at a political event that drew I would guess about 10 thousand people and flooded several downtown streets from curb to curb.* The newspaper the next day had a front page photo of a mom and her 3 kids at the event. 100% true, but totally misrepresented the size of the gathering.

    News, almost by definition, describes the deviations from reality. You don't get a million stories per day "Bob Smith safely drove to work today." But you get the one story "family drives off bridge into freezing lake". This distorts your perception of what's happening and the risks you face.

    News is crap and reporters are professional liars who talk as if we are all idiots. Not only that, but virtually all of them have a strong, thinly veiled political slant to everything they say.

    * It was a long time ago and it doesn't really matter what we were protesting.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:18PM

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @01:18PM (#461175) Homepage Journal

    Lets put this into a doctrine - All news is paid for.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 01 2017, @02:05AM (#461518)

      - All news is paid for.

      Oh, you little Cuban Cheroot! You are a mercenary! How can you give away such fake news for free? HUH!! Who's paying you, you astroturfing shill for powers that prefer to stay in the dark? How much did they pay you to say this about news? Huh? Thirty pieces of bitcoin, eh? Is that all your soul is worth? Have you no decency, Sir? At long last, have you no decency?

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by cubancigar11 on Friday February 03 2017, @05:50PM

      by cubancigar11 (330) on Friday February 03 2017, @05:50PM (#462499) Homepage Journal

      Off-topic :D Finally my karma took 1 hit.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @03:23PM (#461247)

    So... "fake news" suggests that there exists somewhere any other kind of news. Not in my personal experience. Every newsworthy event I've experienced in person has been grossly misreported.

    What's been notable is that when you hear people talking about "fake news" on the TV or in newspapers, what they are talking about isn't demonstrably false and misleading stories finding their way onto the front page of the New York Times, but small scale news outlets. So the push about "Don't read fake news" isn't about whether those sites are reporting true or false information at all, it's about major industry players trying to cut down on the competition.

    News is crap and reporters are professional liars who talk as if we are all idiots.

    I'm not sure all reporters are professional liars. I'm reasonably certain at least some of them are professional dupes who are fed all sorts of "creative" information by professional liars. The overwhelming desire of reporters is to get "the story" out as quickly as possible, rather than to do the much slower work of figuring out whether the story is true or analyzing the effects of whatever is being reported.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:39PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday January 31 2017, @07:39PM (#461389) Journal

      No, those aren't reporters. Reporters are the people who go on scene and report...and while to call them "professional liars" may be overstating the case, it's not doing it by much. In every case I've witnessed they carefully collect only the "interesting" angles on the story. So that's the first level of editing. Then they take it back to the shop and summarize it, cutting out the parts that are "less interesting". These stories are then presented to the editors (their bosses) who decide how much of which story can be used, and what of the remaining needs to be cut. And they do this largely based on maintaining "interest".

      And in NONE of these steps is the main concern telling a complete version of the story. It can't be. And when they are deciding "what's interesting" their biases are being imposed. They cut out parts that look "ugly" or "unattractive". They "tighten the narrative"...in fact they construct the narrative by deciding what the story-line is. Was this fire about the little girl who got out with her puppy, or is it about the insurance inspectors report being ignored, or was it about dangerously overloaded electrical fixtures or... but notice that ALL of those are a part of the same event, event though they are separate stories. And sometimes they thing the story should have a political slant, but this doesn't mean their story isn't about something that happened, it may well not be a lie, exactly, but merely a microscope focused on something that would otherwise be minor.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:51PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday January 31 2017, @06:51PM (#461363) Journal

    So... "fake news" suggests that there exists somewhere any other kind of news.
     
    There is. Even Fox does basic fact checking.

    Definition of fake
    : counterfeit, sham

    As in, it's meant to look like news but its completely factually wrong and the author knows it.