No. Mr Astley did not rework his song. An artist called Mario Klingemann did, using clever software. The video is a particularly obvious example of generated media, which uses quick and basic techniques. More sophisticated technology is on the verge of being able to generate credible video and audio of anyone saying anything. This is down to progress in an artificial intelligence (AI) technique called machine learning, which allows for the generation of imagery and audio.One particular set-up, known as a generative adversarial network (GAN), works by setting a piece of software (the generative network) to make repeated attempts to create imagesthatlook real, while a separate piece of software (the adversarial network) is set up in opposition. The adversary looks at the generated images and judges whether they are “real”, which is measured by similarity to those in the generative software’s training database. In trying to fool the adversary, the generative software learns from its errors. Generated images currently require vast computing power, and only work at low resolution. For now.
People aren’t even intelligent enough to spot obviously fake nonsense written stories, and those were enough to have an impact on the US elections. The current US president managed to “win” the elections by spouting an endless barrage of obvious lies, and the entire Brexit campaign was built on a web of obvious deceit and dishonesty.
Now imagine adding fake video into the mix where anyone can be made to say anything.
https://lyrebird.ai/demo
Yep, pretty scary stuff…
Oh wait, you mean that “grab them by the…” was fake?
😀
Add virtual lip sync, and we have full circle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yq67CjDqvw
Both sides in the presidential election lied and cheated. Just look how Bernie Sanders got cheated by Hillary.
Right but it’s not the fact that they cheated Bernie every one is paying attention to, we have 24 hour news agencies spinning nonsense about who extracted the truth.
Yes– That’s exactly what Trump, Putin and the folks at Cambridge Analytica wanted you to focus on.
Not the issues, like whether Trump has any qualities that might qualify him to run a bake sale, not whether Clinton would have been a better president than Trump– they wanted you to focus on the fact that Clinton screwed Sanders in the election.
And they almost certainly targeted you with anti-Hillary spam, based on the voter mailing lists they got from the DNC (unless you aren’t registered to vote, in which case shut up and go away– the adults are talking).
The Russian collusion is a side show– important, but not nearly as important as the fact that a privately owned company run by a billionaire pulled off the mother of all social engineering operations on the 2016 election– after proving the concept on Brexit.
And that citizens are lazy and do not fact check. Nor do “journalists”.
I guess you aren’t aware that the US basically organised a coup in Ukraine to install a pro-Western stooge?
Edited 2017-07-17 08:41 UTC
SSHHH, don’t let them know too much about RealPolitik
So you believe all the idiotic statements, all the idiotic tweets, all the idiotic decisions, all the idiocy across the board … it’s all for show. And that having (presumably) intelligent family members somehow magically make Donald Trump one himself. That’s what you actually believe? That’s an extremely elaborate hoax you think he’s pulling off. Wouldn’t it be far easier and better serving to the citizens of the US, and the world in general, if he didn’t put on this “show” and didn’t hide his vast knowledge & intelligence?
Or perhaps he really is the idiot he portrays because it isn’t actually an act. The only thing he’s mastered is the art of bullshit and as we all know, people love to buy into garbage as long as it comes in a half-convincing packaging.
Completely irrelevant as far as I’m concerned, regardless of veracity. Your equivalency isn’t just false, it’s meaningless in this context– It’s a bit like a murder suspect claiming innocence because the police officer shot someone else.
I’ve got a research nasters in biotechnology. I guarantee I know far more about genetics than you do.
Politics is show business for ugly people. Most politicians, like actors, have a public persona and a privae one. Teddy Roosevelt was a sickly intellectual who pretended to be a tough guy. Kennedy was a sleazy moron who pretended to be an intellectual and Dubya was a privileged Ivy League insider who acted like a Texas yokel. Putin is a highly intelligent, multilingual lawyer and world class judoku – about as far from the KGB caricature as possible.
Trump is unusual because he shows his bad side in public and his good side in private. Those that know him well say he is charming and intelligent in private.
If you weren’t completely ignorant of history you would be aware that Crimea has been Russian territory for over 400 years and that Russian claim on Eastern Crimea is just as strong and legitimate as the US claim on Teaxas or California.
lol
Given what we have heard from him when he didn’t know he was being recorded completely disproves this.
Unless you’re making the claim that all credible newspapers are completely 100% false in their reporting then this is a stupid stance. This is not even recent, there is a vast volume of reporting over decades that proves this.
The very notion that somebody would argue this makes their judgement questionable.
Edited 2017-07-18 00:33 UTC
You don’t seem aware that 80-90% of Western journalists openly identify with the far left of politics.
Newspapers are in the business of confirmation bias. They simply tell their like-minded readers what they want to hear – that Trump is evil and stupid – and make no pretence of presenting a balanced story. [How many newspapers mentioned the fact that Trump was met by cheering crowds during his recent trip to Poland?]
AFAIK no mainstream newspaper journalist ever bothered to publicise JFKs womanising, mafia connections, apalling health, prescription drug abuse, total incompetence as the commander of PT109, lack of intellect or plagiarised speeches.
Like it or not Trump won fair and square and ran a good campaign. He made sure he campaigned in the swing states, Clinton didn’t. Clinton’s campaign was terrible in comparison, she relied on a campaign of identity politics which as we all know didn’t work.
With regards to brexit. It was pretty much a vote between those in the countryside that have been consistently screwed over by the EU and those in London. Most had already made up their minds well before any campaign started.
Edited 2017-07-17 10:01 UTC
grandmasterphp,
Well, there’s no denying that Trump ran a terrible campaign too, especially among educated people. Hillary isn’t relatable and it’s quite apparent that trump’s intellectual capacity is retarded. We can’t forget that both candidates were extremely unpopular. Ultimately though trump won in the swing states that mattered.
This is nothing new, but arguably the electoral college is not fair because voters in red states count for more than voters in blue states. The democratic candidate has to overcome this bias. Obviously hillary won the popular vote, but lost because of the EC bias. Sucks for democrats, but those are the rules.
Another contributing factor is the political cycles. If you study US presidential history, it’s extremely rare for a party win against the cycle and it’s probably one of the best predictors of who will win. So for example, barrack obama was only able to win following a republican, he would not have been electable in an off cycle. For better or worse, it was the republican’s turn to win.
Spot on. Unfortunately it needs to be spelled out to people who can’t step back to see the bigger picture and instead get lost in the taglines and zingers.
I dunno a lot of predictions put Bernie Winning against Trump if Bernie hadn’t be shafted by his own party. Obviously we will never know. However it doesn’t change the fact that Hillary’s campaign was awful, also the democratic have split their supporter base because many that supported Sanders feel betrayed.
grandmasterphp,
You are right, trump benefited from divisions in the democratic party. Don’t know if you remember but something similar happened with ross perot taking substantial votes away from republicans and allowing bill clinton to win twice. If it weren’t for perot, clinton probably didn’t have the numbers to win a second term. If the democratic party doesn’t stand unified, they could loose votes again in 2020.
I’m a large proponent of switching to a rank vote so that voters could vote for the candidates and parties they really want instead of feeling obliged to vote between candidates they dislike. Heck even trump himself was for voting reform… until he got elected. And of course that’s the problem with politicians including trump, they do what’s best for them instead of what’s best for the country.
Edited 2017-07-18 00:34 UTC
They won’t win in 2020 because they are have doubled down on identity politics. Hillary pissed off a lot of people with her “basket of deplorables” and what I have seen from Democrats so far they haven’t seen to have got the message that most people don’t like identity politics.
Also her campaign team managed to get trolled by 4chan which was still the funniest part of the election.
4chan are still trolling them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpVGmi5Sbek
Edited 2017-07-18 03:24 UTC
grandmasterphp,
…you could say the same about trump I guess, haha.
[quote]Trump really showed aptitude for plan avoidance, dragging opponents through the mud, and getting television ratings[/quote]
As for personal attacks, Trump had it from day one from pretty much everyone and some of the stuff that said was pretty disgusting tbh (especially those insinuating that he had some sort of incestuous relationship with his daughter).
You know what the real genius was, he managed to basically turn most of this around in his favour. e.g. He managed to get the more left wing media outlets to transmit an entire rally as he was going to say something about the birther conspiracy theory, which he left deliberately to after the rally and said one sentence saying that he didn’t believe it was true anymore. He effectively got his whole rally televised without paying a penny.
grandmasterphp,
This has nothing to do with me or anyone else posting here. Go ahead and condemn personal attacks like that, but at least be consistent and condemn trump for doing it too!
I didn’t say it was. When I referred to everyone, I meant MSM etc.
Edited 2017-07-19 07:43 UTC
Most of Trumps “personal attacks” were especially during the selection process were nothing more than “Trash talking”. I do the same with my mates all the time, I just found it funny that a Presidential candidate was the one doing it.
grandmasterphp,
It highlights the hypocrisy.
Everyone is hypocritical. Politicians lie.
Please grow up a bit an understand some realpolitik.
Haha, I know you don’t want to admit it, but trump is the one who needs to hear that.
Edited 2017-07-20 01:23 UTC
I am from the UK, I am not a Trump supporter (but I did win a lot of money on bets with him winning the republican primary and the election). I don’t have skin in the game. You could consider me to be playing the devils advocate somewhat.
As for RealPolitik. I think he understands it just fine. He said some stuff during the election campaign where it was quite obvious he understood it.
The tax comment he made during one of the debates was golden.
The whole Mother of all bombs drop was a good way to tell NK they should settle down.
grandmasterphp,
I donno man, some might have argued this during the election, but now with his experience on display he’s proving to be quite unprepared in practice. If he understood politics so well, his administration shouldn’t be this inept. It’s unusual for a president to struggle so much right off the bat with a majority congress of their own party.
I completely understand the sentiment of people voting in an outsider, but in the end I think trump will prove to be a terrible mistake in two ways: lack of leadership & experience, and turning his back on working class families.
Edited 2017-07-20 15:59 UTC
Oh there we go.
In context how much was that hyperbole?
Edited 2017-07-20 16:11 UTC
grandmasterphp,
I’m really not sure what you are talking about here, but again if you are against hyperbole, then will you at least criticize trump for it as well? He has a long history of exaggerating claims.
Do you think it was hyperbole or not? It is quite simple.
Edited 2017-07-20 17:43 UTC
granmasterphp,
I still have no idea what “it” is, twice now you’ve asserted this while neglecting to specify what you are referring to. Look, if you aren’t going to add anything else to the conversation then we may as well end it here, but I’d like for you to keep the points about hypocrisy in mind the next time this comes up.
I find it funny you are getting upset with me simply disagreeing with you.
I haven’t asserted anything twice. You are just becoming upset.
Edited 2017-07-20 19:21 UTC
grandmasterphp,
What gives your the impression I am upset? It just seems there’s nothing more to discuss with you not clarifying your statements and I have nothing more to add. I think some of the things you’ve said are hypocritical, but who cares. You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. Maybe we can at least agree on that.
Because you keep on ramping up the accusations.
grandmasterphp,
You are making less and less sense.
This:
Are extremely incongruous.
Edited 2017-07-20 01:32 UTC
It is perfectly fine to find something amusing while not agreeing / condoning it. I am sure I am not the first person to laugh inappropriately.
Edited 2017-07-20 14:36 UTC
Dubya had a higher SAT score and a higher GPA than Al Gore. He was also a Harvard MBA and ANG fighter pilot. His IQ is most likely around 130.
If a Republican POTUS had a MIT PhD, a Fields Medal and unshared Nobel Prizes in Physics and Literature the press would still claim he was a moron.
Former conservative Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar is commonly portrayed as an idiot in the Australian press.
unclefester,
Not at all, you’ve read me wrong. My criticisms aren’t based on political parties, but rather their own actions.
Some republican principals can make a lot of sense, but there are too many unethical men running the party who are not acting in the interests of constituents (not entirely unlike the democratic party), and for this the middle class will suffer.
Edited 2017-07-18 06:37 UTC
The reality is that virtually every President in history has been above average in intelligence and a handful have been highly intelligent. Almost all have had an IQ in the 120-140 range. In general their performance in the role was inversely proportional to their intellect.
However if you read the mainstream press you’d think that every Democrat has been a genius and every Republican has been a moron. There is even a hoax website that has claims Clinton had an IQ of 182 and GW Bush had an IQ of 91.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax
unclefester,
Don’t see what any of that has to do with me, to be honest. The “mainstream press” is not the reason trump looks dumb to many people. The reason trump looks dumb is because he never has a thorough plan, he certainly can’t articulate one. When confronted over his lack of substance does he ever give a strong rebuttal? No he doesn’t, he just lashes out like a bully and seemingly cannot make a convincing argument on it’s own merit, preferring to pivot and blaming everyone else for everything.
Sure he would claim to have an intelligent plan, the best and most intelligent plan even, but anyone who’s looking for substance will see this is a man who’s used to lying about how great he is to get his way. And I know trump supporters would like nothing more than to blame everyone else (like the media), but maybe they should take a moment to reflect and consider that their candidate really isn’t as good as they wish he were.
Edited 2017-07-18 14:14 UTC
Sanders was not shafted. That was made up bullshit. He lost the primary based on the votes he received just like Hillary lost in 2008 based on the votes she received.
Yes he was.
It is a good information that you are sharing.http://appletechsupportnumber.net/
Edited 2017-07-17 10:18 UTC
Used to display agents performing perfect voice and mask impersonations. Still not there, but media legitimacy is today an expert’s field.
As said before, analog has a place
That 8mm film “Yeti” had to be performed…
AI is going to bring definitively new challenges to forensics.
Edited 2017-07-17 14:24 UTC
The New in these news is that AI is helping to “select” the best fakes among the fakes. It’s bringing “expertize” to the mases. AI is the new shining tool -not only at finding crime- but also, to commit it.
AI being so organic, not being right or wrong, just better or worst fitted to the task. The issue of catching it on the mix becomes a hunch, a feeling -a matter of art-.
Feel personal uncomfort on this non asked intimacy with technology.
They have been lying to us using fake images and fake video’s on the mainstream media for decades. And now I am supposed to be worried about fake news from amateurs on the internet? People are going to believe what the elite wants them to anyway. If fake news on the internet from amateurs really was so powerful then the elite would just hire a few random actors, give them an authoritative position as scientist or some other authoritative job, and make them tell us whatever they want us to believe on the news, science shows, or something else like that. Most people would believe them based on their position of authority much like people in some religions believe their priests based on their authoritative position.
Contrary to popular belief, people have not outgrown ignorance and gullibility just because they have outgrown the church. They just replaced the church with another system of blind faith. You can see your new priests on news channels and science shows every day. It’s the same trick in new clothes. A new blind faith system replaces the old one.
So really fake news is nothing new.
The only way to save people from fake news is to make people think for themselves so they can defend themselves against it. Censorship is useless, because it requires giving some entity the power to censor whatever it wants and if that entity consists of humans then it will most likely abuse that power to promote it’s own fake news sooner or later.
Well nailed down.
Says the person who writes “I think android is a dead end, but I don’t know why”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/07/12/scarily-convincing…
Take examples like this, where words are put into the mouth of the leader of a country in such a believable way, once posted on youtube (which is not vetted) then a generated video can quickly become viral. True or not, it can change perceptions, reinforce stereotypes, or worse. By the time it is “stopped” the damage is already done.
Edited 2017-07-18 08:27 UTC
“By the time it is “stopped” the damage is already done. ”
Few BIG actors have the resources to detect those “documents” on the wild. Even fewer have the resources to stop them.
We are living a global war on truths. This is WAR.
https://singularityhub.com/2016/05/13/new-digital-face-manipulation-…
“The current US president managed to “win” the elections by spouting an endless barrage of obvious lies, and the entire Brexit campaign was built on a web of obvious deceit and dishonesty.”
NOW THAT IS FAKE NEWS. WHAT UTTER BS!
Want proof?
What lies are you referring to?
What deceit are you referring to?
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. You’re just parroting the mainstream media garbage.