Researchers Have Figured Out How To Fake News Video With AI (qz.com) 87
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: A team of computer scientists at the University of Washington have used artificial intelligence to render visually convincing videos of Barack Obama saying things he's said before, but in a totally new context. In a paper published this month, the researchers explained their methodology: Using a neural network trained on 17 hours of footage of the former U.S. president's weekly addresses, they were able to generate mouth shapes from arbitrary audio clips of Obama's voice. The shapes were then textured to photorealistic quality and overlaid onto Obama's face in a different "target" video. Finally, the researchers retimed the target video to move Obama's body naturally to the rhythm of the new audio track. In their paper, the researchers pointed to several practical applications of being able to generate high quality video from audio, including helping hearing-impaired people lip-read audio during a phone call or creating realistic digital characters in the film and gaming industries. But the more disturbing consequence of such a technology is its potential to proliferate video-based fake news. Though the researchers used only real audio for the study, they were able to skip and reorder Obama's sentences seamlessly and even use audio from an Obama impersonator to achieve near-perfect results. The rapid advancement of voice-synthesis software also provides easy, off-the-shelf solutions for compelling, falsified audio. You can view the demo here: "Synthesizing Obama: Learning Lib Sync from Audio"
Re: (Score:2)
I think they'd need more footage than they have of him actually talking about "adoption"... and to train it on Russian.
Though they do have plenty of footage of him talking about golf and grandchildren...
You don't need A.I. for that. (Score:2)
Call me when they can get the A.I. to reliably produce real news broadcasts.
ain't nothin' true no more (Score:3)
I'm sure it will improve (Score:3)
But when I watched the video, I kept seeing places where the lip/mouth movements did not jibe with what was being said. As is, it's not going to convince anyone who's paying attention.
Of course, nowadays almost everyone is staring at their cell phone most of the time... so perhaps the bar is lower than I expect.
It'll convince people who want to be convinced (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It'll convince people who want to be convinced (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fake news doesn't work on people thinking critically, but you're not after those.
Valid point.
Re:It'll convince people who want to be convinced (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake news doesn't work on people thinking critically, but you're not after those.
Not true in the least. Remember when Dateline used model rocket boosters to blow up the gas tanks on pickup trucks? You know their target audience for that show at the time was 30-45 college educated or higher. Fake news works well on anyone who's ideologically deep in a rabbit hole and wants to engage in confirmation bias.
Let's look at two cases over the last 3 years: Gamergate, where the FBI could find no incidences of harassment [fbi.gov] from anyone tied to it. Demographics [medium.com] educated at college level or higher, married, has family, has high disposable income, roughly 15% are female, has a significant minority quotient from all over the world to boot and aligns politically left. But the media continues on with the lie that they're harassers who pump out death threats, are worse then isis, and then scrub away those women and minorities because they don't fit the narrative(that is if the anti-gg people simply don't call them house n*iggers, or uncle toms). The media view of the people in Gamergate are: single, white, males who live in their parents basement or are virgins living alone. Nice fabrications huh?
Or you can take a look at the "Trump-Russia-Collusion" story. Which has evolved from "Russia colluded with Trump" to "his son talked with a lawyer who's visa expired that the Obama administration specifically let back in at the behest of Susan Rice" along with "Putin talked with Trump during dinner." But the entire thing has fallen apart to the point where pundits outside of the main of the party are saying "shut-up, this is hurting us more then helping." If the media has one narrative, it's very easy to see from the outside. But it sure is self-reinforcing if you're in that rabbit hole.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, have they started coming out with details now? I've stopped reading any stories on it because I got sick of "according to an anonymous source I got from my brothers girlfriends roommates uncles third cousin".
Care to cite these details in stories that don't include "according to an anonymous source" that are actually crimes?
Re: (Score:2)
How nice of you to, as AC, to imply I'm bullshitting.
Of course, you already know these details are coming from the people actually involved. Trump Jr. Trump's lawyer. The Russian lawyer. Various tweets from the POTUS.
And Trump financial ties to Russia are a matter of public record - or, in the case of Trump Jr., public bragging.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Really? That's the example you're going with? The one where the whole last week has been detail after detail coming to light showing collusion is incredibly likely to any reasonable person?
You mean the one with the sources of "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous source" and so on? Oh yeah. Very solid sources there, just like the one about Russia hacking that electrical grid that WAPO published right.
I heard through an anonymous source that your waifu is shit. That's 100% true right?
Just because your panties are in a twist, I'll even add something that doesn't relate to it. Where Kotaku [archive.fo] and Destructiod [oneangrygamer.net] Turns around and lies about a mentally ill person filing multiple false DMCA's
Re: (Score:1)
>You mean the one with the sources of "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous" "anonymous source" and so on? Oh yeah. Very solid sources there,
No, Trump Jr., his lawyer, the Russian lawyer he met with, and Trump's tweets. Odd that as a Canadian you're a fanatical Trump supporter. Perhaps you're butthurt that Harper lost and Canada failed to pursue more American-style politics?
Personally I'm not aligned with any of the parties or their platforms, American or Canadian, and consider the Liberals to have been a
Re: (Score:2)
No, Trump Jr., his lawyer, the Russian lawyer he met with, and Trump's tweets.
You mean that meeting that lasted less then 20 minutes? How funny that the facts don't fit your version of reality especially after it's all been publicly aired.
Odd that as a Canadian you're a fanatical Trump supporter. Perhaps you're butthurt that Harper lost and Canada failed to pursue more American-style politics?
Want to show me that fanatical support? Canada could do more with perusing US style politics, especially weakening of federal powers towards the public and provinces. Actually guaranteeing land ownership(something we don't have in Canada), and having actual freedom of speech. Again something we don't have in Canada. We have "speech which is per
Um.. if you're engaging in confirmation bias (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you've already stopped thinking critically...
Sentence unclear. Contains supposition only, contains no argument. I sure hope you're not a programmer by trade.
Re: (Score:3)
I kept seeing places where the lip/mouth movements did not jibe with what was being said.
If you can see the difference, a GAN can also see it ... and correct it. This is the first demo. The tech to will improve rapidly, especially since the demand for fake news is high.
Re: (Score:1)
especially since the demand for fake news is high.
I'm not sure they aimed at producing fake news. Otherwise they would not have designed the tool to require a voice impressionist [youtu.be].
it's just things he said (Score:2)
out of context.
with a rendered bobblehead? why the fuck would you need that.
just take them out of context and boom, there you have it.
Re: (Score:2)
Larry Bud Melman?
Re: (Score:1)
He already plays Trump [youtube.com]...
This shit's getting way too dangerous. (Score:1)
I remember when something similar happened a few years ago when it came to changing the video/voice on pre-recorded media. What I fear, is a 1984 situation where people in power change what context to suit their agenda. What happened, won't necessarily be what happened.
It doesn't matter anymore (Score:3)
They can easily fool 33% of the nation with flat out lying why do they need to fake anything. Trump Jr can admit a meeting happened, release evidence and still have 1/3 believe it never happened! Trump really could shoot somebody out in the street on TV and not do any worse in the polls.
Progress, but not yet out of the Uncanny Valley (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a lot of progress I see, but watching the video, the artificial bit still looks a bit creepy and weird. We're not out of the uncanny valley for this sort of thing yet.
Trump (Score:1, Funny)
Great, now we can make a video of our current president saying some crazy shit ... oh wait.
That's the best you've got? (Score:1)
It looks like dog shit. Superdelux on YouTube does a better job.
The Running Man (Score:2)
Pretty soon somebody's gonna get framed and end up on a deadly game show, and not that rip-off version with the whiney kids.
Re: (Score:3)
Obligatory (Score:2)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
Just a more polished version.
Oh yeah. (Score:2)
Oh yeah, Obama is definitely the one I'd be using the software on first. Definitely not the "grab her by the pussy" speech, no way.
Re:Oh yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
They probably started this research while Obama still was president, and besides, they probably liked him. If there's anyone who can use the "fake video" defense now, it's him -- even if it's someone else's work. In that way, they've done him a favor.
Lipreader says no. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Chances are it's more than good enough to feed the typical viewer, who will be very quick to "inform" you that not only is lip-reading inaccurate but that you're just a crackpot trying to make shit up to feel better about being crippled.
Then they'll remind you that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia and that you'd know this if you could understand news.
Autist says no. (Score:5, Informative)
Being on the autism spectrum, I have a tendency to focus on peoples' mouths when they speak. I would characterize the quality of the generated content as abysmal.
One of the major giveaways is that phonemes which involve the lips interacting with teeth are way off. Just not even close. The word "visited" looks for all the world like what's being said is "dizited". How can they generate a 'd' motion for a 'v' sound and still have the balls to publish their paper, let alone make any sort of claims that it's believable? It's absolutely galling, precisely because it's only accurate enough to fool people who want to be fooled, leaving those of us who know better shouting weakly from the proverbial back of the room.
Re: (Score:1)
Foreigners says no. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm deaf and have been lipreading for more than 40 years. I can confirm these videos are not lip-readable - many words are only half formed (one syllable where there should be two) and the mouth transitions are too jerky. It's a good attempt and I'm positive the tech will just keep getting better, but right now, it's not there yet.
The scary part is that the 'yet' is probably only a couple of years away. Then imagine a world where anyone can create their own production of any person saying anything they like.
They call this news?? (Score:5, Funny)
I've seen recent news broadcasts and the only thing that would mimic them successfully would be Artificial Stupidity.
Nothing new (Score:3)
A long time ago, news was spoken, and you decided to believe, or not to believe, the person telling the tale.
A while ago, news was written, and you decided to believe, or not to believe, the author writing it.
Somewhere along the way, more and more people began to presume that everything is true -- maybe because most of it was, or maybe because they were just that stupid.
Congrats! Those times are over.
Now, once again, you get to spend more time evaluating the source than the content. Enjoy!
Re: (Score:2)
A long time ago, news was spoken, and you decided to believe, or not to believe, the person telling the tale.
A while ago, news was written, and you decided to believe, or not to believe, the author writing it.
Somewhere along the way, more and more people began to presume that everything is true -- maybe because most of it was, or maybe because they were just that stupid.
Congrats! Those times are over.
Now, once again, you get to spend more time evaluating the source than the content. Enjoy!
I think you have that wrong. A long time a go there was a cost to distributing information, so only a few could do it, and those people sent consistent messages (rightly or wrongly). Over time the information source was mostly reliable so trust was developed. Now information is free to create, distribute and imitate, and the messages are inconsistent and unreliable. This creates a situation where no information can be trusted. Not even smart people will have the means to validate the information since the v
Re: (Score:1)
A long time ago, news was spoken, and you decided to believe, or not to believe, the person telling the tale.
There are some news sources that are still written in a way to present facts, rather than opinions and allow the reader to make up their own mind.
These are often derided as "biased lefty propaganda" by those who are used to the Fox News style of "pissing on your back and telling you its raining" presenting opinions rather than facts.
Let me save you some money (Score:2)
Instead of investing time on this, just go to reddit / 4chan and wait a few minutes. This whole "fake news" debacle is really just the same old trolls with new outfits.
Re: (Score:2)
German researchers did this last year (Score:2)
https://qz.com/654669/nothing-... [qz.com]
A research team has created software that allows them to control the face of anyone in any video. Using advanced facial recognition, it looks at about 15 seconds of any face in a video and creates a 3D model of that face in real time.
Commence Running Man! (Score:2)
Pelevin predicted this (Score:1)
Block chain to the rescue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Another chunk taken out of free will (Score:1)
How can we have free will when our world is artificially shaped to manipulate us?
There is something to be said for the time when we had to dwell in caves.
'V' fail. It might have helped if at least (Score:2)