I confess I don’t get the existential concern around deepfakes. Can anyone explain it to me? I imagine we’ll have a few incidents where deepfakes are taken too seriously, as we get used to them. But we’ll learn and adapt pretty quickly, as we did with Photoshop. Yes/no/maybe?
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @KevinSimler
when does a quantitative change turn into a qualitative change? e.g. voice to text: even at 90-95% it’s not very useful. but at 99% all of a sudden its amazing!
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wminshew @KevinSimler
i think the concern is similar to this around 1/ how easy it is to create fake material and 2/ what’s the quality of that fake material?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wminshew @KevinSimler
re 1, if someone can create a convincing photoshop in a few hours is that qualitative different than creating thousands of fakes in a few hours?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wminshew @KevinSimler
re 2, photoshops that are 90-95% accurate are annoying but the human crowd can mostly spot them (eventually). does that change when accuracy goes to 99+ tho?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Thanks, this is the first argument I’ve seen that I like. (I’m not sure I buy it, but I like it.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.