Deepfake - Recognize Truth?


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

I recently saw this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_J8Y16A1o about how far Deepfakes have come.

I remember hearing about the technology being born around the year 2000.  It was intriguing to think that things could be done.  When I saw the first deepfake videos on Youtube, I thought they were so fake that no one would be taken in by this technology.

As I look at the examples in the video I linked to, I had to admit that they've come a long way.  They are all still clearly fake.  But if I weren't aware they were deepfake and if I weren't paying attention (like casually listening to a news flash) it wouldn't have occurred to me.  I would have simply "felt" like the video was kinda weird.

So far, they are still easily discernible by anyone with a eye for detail.  But at some point, it will take expert digital technicians to discern the difference.  And who knows?  At some point it will be impossible to tell the difference.

With the warning from Pres. Nelson

Quote

In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost.

I wonder if this technology will be a major part of that.  We simply won't be able to believe our eyes anymore.  Anyone could be made to say anything anymore.  What if someone were to hijack the General Conference video and replace it with a deepfake saying something completely wrong?

How many of us would be thinking, "This has got to be fake"?  I know quite a few people who are simply on the border that will say,"This is the last straw!" And they would not come back even if corrections/denials were issued.  Many such people would take the position "Even if it was a deepfake, they were saying the things they really believe anyway."

Learn to depend on the Holy Ghost.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans have always been struggling with such things throughout recorded history.  The best practices back then are still the best practices today - use your brain and be skeptical.  Back in the day, official letters from the king (or whoever) were sent under 'official seal'.  Which meant the letter was folded, and wax was dripped across the pages, and the seal was pressed into the wax.  You could tell when the seal was broken.   And when some weirdo named Ankahrl claimed to have a message from the king in a special language that only he could read, you could see there was no wax seal, the writing looked like nonsense, and you'd refuse to hand over your daughter for betrothal, because you figured out you were being scammed.

The technology changes, but the defenses seem to remain the same. 

image.thumb.jpeg.85efe51651dacc6462f246bccfa4b26f.jpeg

 

Remember folks, there's a sucker born every minute.  If you don't believe it, you're probably him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

The technology changes, but the defenses seem to remain the same. 

image.thumb.jpeg.85efe51651dacc6462f246bccfa4b26f.jpeg

Remember folks, there's a sucker born every minute.  If you don't believe it, you're probably him. 

Thanks, NT.  I'd like to go down this list and see if they would still help with deepfakes and Church matters.

1.Consider the source:  Yes, a good practice.  But if General Conference and the Church Website can be hacked, then what?  The source is supposed to be good.  But how would we know if the site was hacked?  We can wait to see if there is a retraction.  But...

2. Read beyond:  Well, in the case of GC addresses with hacked electronic communication???  Can't really do that.

3. Check the author: Same as #1.

4. Supporting sources:  Same as #2.

5. Check the date: Same as the above.

6. Is it a joke? (and let's say "absurd").  This "sense" is really the only thing that would tip off someone who is faithful and knowledgeable.  But how many people are really aware enough to consider that?  I've been in rather large wards who may have known "about" the articles of faith.  But none of them were familiar enough to even discuss them.  That is pretty sad.  There simply aren't enough people in most of the wards I've been in that would be able to recognize something absurd.

7. Biases: Yes.  That is a big one.  In a theological sense, we need to make sure we're aligning with revealed word rather than clinging to our theological hobby-horses.  I know I've got a lot of "theories."  But I'd never depend on them for salvation-related decisions.  But we all know those who would be baptized yesterday and go inactive today.  Their heart was never in it to begin with.  So, the first sign of trouble, why bother?

8. Ask the experts:  Sounds good generally.  But I'd refer back to my comments on #6 above.  Are there enough people in enough wards that really would know what is acceptable vs what isn't?

You can call it "the theological equivalent," or a "backup," or maybe even a "replacement," for all these criteria, we need to take the Prophet's counsel to heart.  Learn to depend on the Spirit (ultimately the only real "expert").  We need to learn to feel and recognize the Spirit.

We all know that our interpretations can be unreliable.  But that is our weakness.  And maybe that is the trial of this generation.  Can we really discern the difference between the promptings of the Spirit vs our own biases/opinions/etc.?

This is the wax seal.  And if we don't know what the wax seal is supposed to look like, we can be taken in by ANY wax seal.  I realize that kinda goes against what Elder Bednar was saying.  But for most people, I wonder if that will be different.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2023 at 10:55 AM, Carborendum said:

I recently saw this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_J8Y16A1o about how far Deepfakes have come.

I remember hearing about the technology being born around the year 2000.  It was intriguing to think that things could be done.  When I saw the first deepfake videos on Youtube, I thought they were so fake that no one would be taken in by this technology.

As I look at the examples in the video I linked to, I had to admit that they've come a long way.  They are all still clearly fake.  But if I weren't aware they were deepfake and if I weren't paying attention (like casually listening to a news flash) it wouldn't have occurred to me.  I would have simply "felt" like the video was kinda weird.

So far, they are still easily discernible by anyone with a eye for detail.  But at some point, it will take expert digital technicians to discern the difference.  And who knows?  At some point it will be impossible to tell the difference.

With the warning from Pres. Nelson

I wonder if this technology will be a major part of that.  We simply won't be able to believe our eyes anymore.  Anyone could be made to say anything anymore.  What if someone were to hijack the General Conference video and replace it with a deepfake saying something completely wrong?

How many of us would be thinking, "This has got to be fake"?  I know quite a few people who are simply on the border that will say,"This is the last straw!" And they would not come back even if corrections/denials were issued.  Many such people would take the position "Even if it was a deepfake, they were saying the things they really believe anyway."

Learn to depend on the Holy Ghost.

 

Some years ago a blogger leaked a copy of the revelation President Kimball received in 1978 lifting the priesthood ban. The blogger quickly revealed that he made it up after it went viral and people were getting emotional over it. But many people thought it was authentic. Even many saints thought it was authentic. The language was clunky and the doctrinal justification in it was not very sound, but still many saints thought it was authentic.

The fallout was exactly what you described. Emotionally-attached members were disappointed that it wasn’t authentic, and wounded that a textual revelation wasn’t extant, while critics held it up as an example of how easy it is to create a revelation and that the Church should simply produce one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Some years ago a blogger leaked a copy of the revelation President Kimball received in 1978 lifting the priesthood ban. The blogger quickly revealed that he made it up after it went viral and people were getting emotional over it. But many people thought it was authentic. Even many saints thought it was authentic. The language was clunky and the doctrinal justification in it was not very sound, but still many saints thought it was authentic.

The fallout was exactly what you described. Emotionally-attached members were disappointed that it wasn’t authentic, and wounded that a textual revelation wasn’t extant, while critics held it up as an example of how easy it is to create a revelation and that the Church should simply produce one.

I am having trouble understanding exactly what you're saying.  What did the falsified "leak" say?  Why were some disappointed that it wasn't authentic?

EDIT:

Are you saying that the blogger simply produced a copy of OD2 (calling it a "leak") and later declared that he (the blogger) had made it up?  And many Saints were disappointed that the revelation stated in OD2 (which, apparently they were completely unaware of) was just made up?

The language was clunky and the doctrinal justification was not sound?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is also wretched and wicked that people do these deep fake videos with other people's faces and put them into pornography pictures and videos.

I was talking about it with my wife the other day.  The Internet has brought a lot of good but I think the evil it has brought forth has made the world overall into a worse place.  It is sad to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2023 at 1:24 PM, Carborendum said:

I am having trouble understanding exactly what you're saying.  What did the falsified "leak" say?  Why were some disappointed that it wasn't authentic?

EDIT:

Are you saying that the blogger simply produced a copy of OD2 (calling it a "leak") and later declared that he (the blogger) had made it up?  And many Saints were disappointed that the revelation stated in OD2 (which, apparently they were completely unaware of) was just made up?

The language was clunky and the doctrinal justification was not sound?

The second Official Declaration doesn’t contain the revelation, it declares that there was a revelation. This post claimed to have the revelation.

I looked for the post I was talking about and it looks like I’m conflating two events. There was a blog showing how easily a revelation could have been created to put the priesthood ban behind us, demonstrating with a really weak “revelation”. There was also a phony online article stating President Nelson met with the NAACP and apologized. As part of the apology the First Presidency stated “that the ban itself was wrong. It was not of God but of fallible men, born of ignorance, pride and sin”. The prophet had indeed met with the NAACP, but the apology and statement were wholly fabricated.

To clarify the fallout, there are many saints who would love for the Church to simply say exactly what the bogus press release said. They were excited and exultant when they saw it finally happen, then confused when the linked article didn’t exactly say that, then disappointed and hurt when it proved false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mordorbund said:

To clarify the fallout, there are many saints who would love for the Church to simply say exactly what the bogus press release said. They were excited and exultant when they saw it finally happen, then confused when the linked article didn’t exactly say that, then disappointed and hurt when it proved false.

I think that my misinterpretation of your earlier post was much more entertaining. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just occurred to me that this may have been what was used in a video we're all familiar with.

The "Biden doesn't blink" address https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-y3RS2Ihxc

There is something awfully weird about his facial muscles.  And the voice doesn't really match his physicality.  The lungs don't inflate and deflate in accordance with his speech. 

Is it possible that this was a deepfake?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/10/2023 at 8:55 AM, Carborendum said:

I recently saw this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR_J8Y16A1o about how far Deepfakes have come.

I remember hearing about the technology being born around the year 2000.  It was intriguing to think that things could be done.  When I saw the first deepfake videos on Youtube, I thought they were so fake that no one would be taken in by this technology.

As I look at the examples in the video I linked to, I had to admit that they've come a long way.  They are all still clearly fake.  But if I weren't aware they were deepfake and if I weren't paying attention (like casually listening to a news flash) it wouldn't have occurred to me.  I would have simply "felt" like the video was kinda weird.

So far, they are still easily discernible by anyone with a eye for detail.  But at some point, it will take expert digital technicians to discern the difference.  And who knows?  At some point it will be impossible to tell the difference.

With the warning from Pres. Nelson

I wonder if this technology will be a major part of that.  We simply won't be able to believe our eyes anymore.  Anyone could be made to say anything anymore.  What if someone were to hijack the General Conference video and replace it with a deepfake saying something completely wrong?

How many of us would be thinking, "This has got to be fake"?  I know quite a few people who are simply on the border that will say,"This is the last straw!" And they would not come back even if corrections/denials were issued.  Many such people would take the position "Even if it was a deepfake, they were saying the things they really believe anyway."

Learn to depend on the Holy Ghost.

 

"Shortly after the Prophet Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young told of a dream in which Joseph visited and instructed him: “Joseph stepped toward us, and looking very earnestly, yet pleasantly, said: ‘Tell the people to be humble and faithful, and be sure to keep the spirit of the Lord and it will lead them right. Be careful and not turn away the small still voice; it will teach them what to do and where to go; it will yield the fruits of the Kingdom. … Tell the brethren that if they will follow the spirit of the Lord, they will go right’” - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-6?lang=eng

Edited by Emmanuel Goldstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share