
Tricks That Can Outsmart Deepfake Videos for Now - joewee
https://www.wired.com/story/these-new-tricks-can-outsmart-deepfake-videosfor-now/
======
dev_dull
It’s really silly how people are worried about this like it’s a looming legal
crisis. Have you seen the types of videos that are used in courts? They're
grainy, CCTV footage with a trusted chain of custody. It’s not like they take
footage from some random guy that shows a convincing, perfectly clear face.

Deepfakes will have the same impact on law enforcement as convincing
photoshopped pictures before. Which is to say absolutely no impact.

~~~
MaxLeiter
I’m not sure why the below comment is dead - it’s a valid point. My worry
regarding deepfake videos is their political and social consequences

~~~
emmelaich
Exactly -- many assertions fall very far from being prosecutable but can be
enormously disruptive socially.

See the recent SCOTUS nominations for an example.

... and that's in a modern well-educated society.

In countries that are riven by sectarian and tribal rivalries, a convincing
video can result in the deaths of millions.

------
amluto
One technique I haven’t seen mentioned would be to take advantage of the fact
that the world is 3D but neural networks that make fake videos are somewhat
fundamentally 2D. Making good 3D computer graphics is hard and involves a lot
of lighting calculations that are very different from what neural networks do.
It seems like it should be possible to detect the errors that a neural network
will introduce that will make the scene unphysical, at least in cases where
more is modified than just small bits of geometry like the position of
someone’s lips and other facial features.

~~~
chongli
If you can write a function to quantify those errors, then you can use it to
train the neural networks that produce the deepfakes. The better your error
function, the better the deepfakes.

~~~
nothrabannosir
Is that always true ? I know nothing about AI whatsoever but wouldn’t the
function have to satisfy certain properties for a NN to be able to learn from
it? Properties that the discussed “3D verifier function “ wouldn’t necessarily
have?

It sounds very much like complexity theory, where you definitely have problems
that are easier to verify than solve (see NP hard).

(Otherwise I could do stuff like use a hash function to train a NN to compute
input for hashes , for example, no?)

~~~
chongli
_It sounds very much like complexity theory, where you definitely have
problems that are easier to verify than solve (see NP hard)._

I think you mean NP. NP hard includes problems that are not in NP, such as the
halting problem.

I'm not aware of any proof that photorealistic 3D rendering is in NP. If it is
not, then verifying 3D cannot be said to be _easy_.

~~~
krastanov
Nitpicking on your nitpick: you mean NP-complete, not NP (for instance, any P
problem is an NP problem, but NP-complete problems are probably not P)

~~~
mygo
You’re correct, but I’m gonna have to nitpick your nitpick and say that NP-
complete problems have not been proven (or disproven) to be in P. “Probably
not” is an opinion.

~~~
valvar
It's a well-informed opinion that is based on the fact that what we do know
indicates[1] that, probably, P≠NP.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Reasons_to...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP_problem#Reasons_to_believe_P_%E2%89%A0_NP)

~~~
mygo
Publish a paper with the mathematical proof. “probably not” is neither here
nor there.

The main argument from your link is nobody has found an efficient algorithm
for any of the 3,000+ studied problems after all this time.

And yet it’s also true that in the same span of time, nobody has been able to
prove the that it’s not, either. No matter how hard they have tried.

“probably not” is just an opinion. I’ll wait for the formal proof. Till then
it simply is not known whether or not.

------
iamwil
What about using the video magnification technique to detect fakes? I'm
guessing, in the same vain that the training dataset doesn't have blinking, it
probably doesn't have a regular heartbeat.

This is the technique I'm thinking about
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9ASH8IBJ2U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9ASH8IBJ2U)

Perhaps you need a high framerate in order for this to work?

~~~
johndough
Extracting heart beats from video with this technique only works reliably if
the target is almost stationary, so a high framerate would help. However, high
framerate requires bright lighting.

------
mistercow
> MediFor started in 2016 when the agency saw the fakery game leveling up. The
> project aims to create an automated system that looks at three levels of
> tells, fuses them, and comes up with an “integrity score” for an image or
> video.

That seems iffy. The problem with any automated system is that it can be used
as an input into the training process. Things like matching weather reports to
lighting sound more promising, because they'd require the manipulator to be
more detailed in the data they collect, but that kind of thing also sounds a
lot less reliable as an indicator.

------
FredrikMeyer
If one wants the content of this article in podcast format, the researcher was
interviewed in one of the latest episodes of Data Skeptic (an excellent pod
cast, by the way):
[https://dataskeptic.com/blog/episodes/2018/deepfakes](https://dataskeptic.com/blog/episodes/2018/deepfakes)

------
quotemstr
The thing about video authentication is that any algorithm that can classify
videos into "real" and "fake" categories can serve as an input to a GAN that
makes more convincing videos. Any fake-detection oracle is in fact a valuable
training apparatus, and distributing the things will quickly backfire.

"So", you might suggest, "let's keep the classifiers secret and only reveal
specific classifications to the public! The learning rate at one example of
day would be terrible." Sure, this approach would stop adversarial classifiers
acting as training aides, but such a thing would be socially useless, since
nobody would have a reason to trust your pronouncements.

I don't think there's a way anyone wins here. The end game is that we return
to an almost 19th century model in which recorded media takes on a faded
secondary role relative to in-person experience and trusted commentary. (And
don't expect anyone to agree on who's "trusted".)

~~~
justtopost
> don't expect anyone to agree on who's 'trusted'

This has always been the case. I personally have issues with almost every
major news outlet recently. Not just bias but blatant one-sided partisan
reporting by nearly every actor. Not taking a side (nobody even remotely spoke
to my values or concience) this election really opened my eyes. Both sides
hatefully attacking each other for being hateful, and using that to justify
further hate (of hate, so its cool, we arent all bigots right? Right!?) of the
other 'side'. Neither side will even give the benefit of a doubt that what the
other side does is in good faith with their values. It was kinda funny when
drunk sports fans duked it out over forgone alegences to groups that don't
know they exist, but its happening in casual social situations more and more.
How much more of this before our own beerhall putsch moments begin? I
digress...

Trust is already a fickle beast. Bloomberg is wrestling with it now, no matter
their rigour. Personally, I think it might be a choice, by prompting either a
culture of verification and lockdown (modern china), or implied common trust
in an ideal but uncertainty (i.e. early usa). Both have huge advantages,
injustices, and liabilities. It seems we have approached a middle ground with
few of the perks of either and many of the disadvantages to both. Perhaps
there is a better way moving forward. I am personally partial to 'dangerous'
freedom, over 'safe' subjugation, in all cases. As such, my values my differ
may from the mean. Such a system implies personal agency, which is rejected by
the popular dogmatic fatalism of 'post-meritocracy'.

------
growlist
How long until we get a deepfake filter option when shooting video, that then
gives you plausible deniability should your sex tape leak..

~~~
Trombone12
That sounds useful for making porn to sell, but what is the point of making
your _own_ sextape if you can't tell it's you on it? There is already loads of
porn...

~~~
telchar
I suspect GP means a filter that makes the video appear to have the hallmarks
of a deep fake without actually changing the apparent participants.

~~~
growlist
Exactly

------
cm2012
Photoshop has been around forever but I can't remember a time any forgery
caused an issue publically.

~~~
tw1010
Yeah, this is why I'm not worried one iota about deepfakes. Say what you will
about fake news, but blantant lies like a faked video or image generally does
not get through journalistic filters. Something big like a fake video of a
celebrity or a president would very unlikely be published (and if it grew
viral through some disingenuous source, its spread would be severely dampened
by trusted newssites warning the public not to believe it). I mean just look
at the subsequent backlash after oobah butler's pranks. Sure, his prank fooled
the news, but it's effects were totally nil in the long-term steady state.

~~~
CM30
Depends how good the journalistic filters are. Would these deepfakes get
through the ones for the New York Times or BBC or Telegraph? Maybe not, but I
have no doubt they'd fool the tabloid papers, especially given how low the
standards are for stuff like the Sun/Daily Mirror/Daily Star/etc. They'd also
likely fool quite a few specialist sites too, especially given the likes of
the gaming press have very low standards for credible sources or evidence.
People on Twitter have fooled them with blurry cellphone photos on a semi
regular basis.

But it definitely depends on the news source and how thorough they are with
verifying stories.

~~~
tw1010
Sure, but I still don't see why we should be hysterically scared about its
development since I think photoshopped images would have made the same damage
a long time ago if the system was really that fragile. The fact that
photoshopped images aren't nearly as big a threat as what we're expecting
deepfakes to be makes me think that however the set of amplifiers and filters
are configured (and I'll admit that I don't have a full understanding of it
all), it's likely that they're sufficient to not make society collapse once
the technology has matured.

Photoshopped images are a sort of "trial balloon" which has already proven
that the system is pretty dang robust, that's my thesis.

------
mentos
I have a feeling there will always be a way to detect trace footprints of a
'fake' but assuming the technology is perfected, what is the best way to
verify that a Deepfake video is not you without analyzing the video?

Thinking on this I feel like the future might require that we record our every
move via some sort of verified GPS service so that you can corroborate your
whereabouts. Maybe their service comes with a video recording device that can
show no, 'at this date + time client was at a McDonalds drive through at
41°24'12.2"N 2°10'26.5"E here is a 452 second video of their engagement' which
would overlap the supposed Deepfake timeline/video

Thoughts?

I imagine if the service is publicly trusted/credible then it would not need
to expose the actual details of the client's whereabouts, it could just issue
a true/false verification on a Deepfake based on the data held privately.

~~~
cpitman
I imagine it would work the same as any other information today, like press
releases. Who is the source? Where did they get it from? Do I have any reason
to doubt them?

Ie, the end of "trusting" videos from unknown sources with unknown reputations
and agendas.

------
phyller
The obvious worry about this technology is disinformation being spread,
misrepresenting who people are and what they have done or said. But it also
gives everyone deniability. If someone catches a powerful person assaulting
someone, and actually has a video of it, they can just say it was a really
good fake. How can we know?

~~~
krastanov
Trust journalists with a good track record, which is the way we as a society
decide whether whistle blowers are to be believed. I get that we tech people
dislike relying on humans, and the libertarian among us feel particularly
uncomfortable trusting the media, but there are professional investigative
journalists that have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place
by uncovering the truth. And they have had to deal with similar issues since
forever (other types of forgeries have existed for a while).

We fight this by having less partisanship and stronger free press.

~~~
phyller
I would love this to be the case. My problem with this approach is that every
single news report that I have actually had personal knowledge of has been
ridiculously flawed. I just can't bring myself to believe that there is some
protected elite cadre of journalists I should trust when 100% of my actual
experience has been the opposite.

Their direct incentives are getting sales (and now clicks), which doesn't
appear to be highly correlated with accuracy. Additionally, my experience in
college was that it wasn't the best and the brightest going into that field,
though I deeply hope that it was a skewed sample, and believe that there are
many deeply intelligent people working there.

However, I think it likely that many people are not drawn to the field for the
pursuit of pure objective truth, but because they have a particular agenda and
want to enlighten the world with it.

There is a quote about a logical fallacy that I can't quite remember, it goes
along the lines of the following: You read an article about something with
which you are deeply familiar. You laugh to yourself at the childish
misconceptions of the journalist. You then turn the page to something you know
little about, and assume that everything that is written is true. That doesn't
make sense.

~~~
krastanov
You are talking about this anecdote [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-
Mann_amnesia_effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect)

And I partially agree! But do not throw out the baby with the bathwater! I am
a physicist myself and have seen how the Gell-Mann effect has become less
problematic over time, especially in respected journals that want to be taken
seriously by scientists: Just make a decisive effort to 1) go out of your
bubble and 2) learn about logical fallacies.

------
throwawaysat20
This reminds me of the Star Trek episode where Data figures out his “mom” is
an android because her blinking follows some mathematical pattern.

------
uiron
Could not oursmart the non-clickable-on-smartphone subscription notification.

~~~
tomrod
I used the Brave browser. No issue.

------
jameslk
Why not cryptographically sign videos from officials?

~~~
quotemstr
Because the most politically salient and salacious videos are the ones not
officially endorsed by their subjects.

~~~
jameslk
They don't have to be. The reporter/agency could sign the video.

------
_up
I wonder why they choose Obama and Hillary as examples for being deepfaked.
Aren't they basically retired now?

------
rapind
Couldn't this be solved with Blockchain Watermarking?

------
nickpsecurity
Combat Deepfakes by doing original things regularly on your paid and/or public
mediums that you incorporate randomly into new content. The fakes gotta play
catch up due to training process. The more complex, subtle, and human, the
better since they'll likely screw it up somehow. Just be an original,
spontaneous (or more so) human from a source that people can verify.

The fakes will stand out. We'll all get more interesting celebrities. The
celebrities will have more fun. Everybody wins... for a while. :)

------
bsenftner
I get irritated seeing deep fake videos and articles, because my 2004 Master
Thesis "Automated Actor Replacement in Filmed Media" details everything about
how to make them, how to overcome all their integration with real media
issues, as well as how to identify fakes. It further details how to integrate
Deep Fake (I called them Personalized Videos) into the existing post
production media industry, enabling large scale productions. I acquired a
global patent, and tried to create a Personalized Advertising startup. Yet,
back then, no one believed, thought it was fraud, and when they got it they
hyper-focused on creating porn, which if they read my thesis turned business
plan, I detail how porn is economically unprofitable as personalized videos.

I tried to prove my ideas by created a "vfx at the last mile" pipeline with a
small investment round, enabling media agencies to create ad with you in the
Domino's pizza or rental car advertisement. It worked, feature film quality.
Still they did not believe, or hyper-focused on porn.

I went bankrupt, closed, and went to work in Facial Recognition, where my
skills are recognized. The personal one-to-one treatment I received when
pitching to entertainment studios versus that of silicon valley VCs is worthy
of a book; I have zero respect for VC now: of hundreds of personal
interactions, one and only one was not a social climbing, rich parents moron.

~~~
umanwizard
> It worked, feature film quality.

Link to examples, otherwise your comment just reads like crankery.

By the way, I googled "Automated Actor Replacement in Filmed Media" and I
couldn't find your Master's thesis. I could only find posts by you on HN,
Quora, and other sites.

~~~
phpnode
Not the OP but I found this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GnIVWEAPus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GnIVWEAPus)

~~~
tofof
[https://youtu.be/1GnIVWEAPus?t=38](https://youtu.be/1GnIVWEAPus?t=38)

Ah yes, feature film quality. For values of 'feature film' that approximately
equal 'late-night comedy show where moving lips are overlaid on a still
image'.

~~~
bsenftner
No, actual feature film VFX quality, which requires a VFX budget and is not
created trivially. Any studio or production facility we negotiated vetted the
process and understood it's viability. The process was used in dozens of VFX
films, but as a one off technique, where the process could just as easily have
been used to actor replace anyone. You see, that is somewhat the key the
process, because it is successful regardless of who is being inserted into the
media, it grants an amount of freedom, or casual attitude for the production
artists who used to view actor replacement as a difficult, time consuming
challenge.

