Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI

An AI-Powered App Has Resulted in an Explosion of Convincing Face-Swap Porn (vice.com) 222

Samantha Cole, reporting for Motherboard: In December, Motherboard discovered a Redditor named 'deepfakes' quietly enjoying his hobby: Face-swapping celebrity faces onto porn performers' bodies. He made several convincing porn videos of celebrities -- including Gal Gadot, Maisie Williams, and Taylor Swift -- using a machine learning algorithm, his home computer, publicly available videos, and some spare time. Since we first wrote about deepfakes, the practice of producing AI-assisted fake porn has exploded. More people are creating fake celebrity porn using machine learning, and the results have become increasingly convincing. A redditor even created an app specifically designed to allow users without a computer science background to create AI-assisted fake porn. All the tools one needs to make these videos are free, readily available, and accompanied with instructions that walk novices through the process.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

An AI-Powered App Has Resulted in an Explosion of Convincing Face-Swap Porn

Comments Filter:
  • FINALLY (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mike Hock ( 249988 ) <andress@nOSpAM.resortsuite.com> on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @02:53PM (#55994423) Homepage Journal

    My OPRAH PORN dream is coming true !!

  • ... is that people who are procuring illegal (in particular, kiddie) porn could then hide behind the response of "I thought it was fake". If it went the other way though and actually destroyed the child and exploitative porn market then it would be mostly for the better.
    • by eth1 ( 94901 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @03:05PM (#55994543)

      ... is that people who are procuring illegal (in particular, kiddie) porn could then hide behind the response of "I thought it was fake". If it went the other way though and actually destroyed the child and exploitative porn market then it would be mostly for the better.

      It goes a lot deeper than that. For example, now that I know this is so easy to do, if I'm ever on a jury, I can't really consider any video evidence as enough for a criminal conviction, unless it has a documented chain of custody.

      Likewise, any video that would normally cause public scandal can be dismissed as, "oh, it's fake!" even if it isn't, which might actually be a net benefit for public figures and those in power.

      • ... is that people who are procuring illegal (in particular, kiddie) porn could then hide behind the response of "I thought it was fake". If it went the other way though and actually destroyed the child and exploitative porn market then it would be mostly for the better.

        It goes a lot deeper than that. For example, now that I know this is so easy to do, if I'm ever on a jury, I can't really consider any video evidence as enough for a criminal conviction, unless it has a documented chain of custody.

        Likewise, any video that would normally cause public scandal can be dismissed as, "oh, it's fake!" even if it isn't, which might actually be a net benefit for public figures and those in power.

        That's been handled by the digital security industry for over a decade. The first real digital video surveillance system signed every single frame at the encoder so that you could show exactly what frames, if any, were modified in court. The encoders now are built right into the cameras.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        There is already a video of Obama apparently saying stuff he never said using this kind of tech. We need to think of a way to deal with this.

        • by TFlan91 ( 2615727 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @03:44PM (#55994847)

          Education. Good, quality education. Giving citizens the ability to discern with genuine rational what to consider and disregard whatever is in the public eye.

          You may not like the idea, but it really is the only solution to almost all of our modern day problems.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            People are not educatable in this regard. Look at all the people who say that Trump hates women, minorities, muslims, etc. No amount of education can convince people not to believe the worst about someone they have been convinced is evil.

            Further, some people truly are extreme. You cannot use logic based on typical human behavior to know what an extremist would or would not actually do. Hitler was literally having human beings killed in ovens. That is very extreme and out of character for any normal person's

            • by mjwx ( 966435 )

              People are not educatable in this regard. Look at all the people who say that Trump hates women, minorities, muslims, etc. No amount of education can convince people not to believe the worst about someone they have been convinced is evil.

              Ahh, you have this backwards... To achieve your deification of Trump, you need more ignorance, not more education. Education tends to lead people to making logical conclusions based on evidence and actions, its ignorance that makes them believe things that aren't true. Fortunately for you, its easier to make people more ignorant than educated, the tool you need is Propaganda.

          • I wish I had your level of optimism.

      • You are right down to identity - who when where, even she did WHAT? Thank you Equifax, your spilling "identity kits" onto the black market has accelerated the need to re think just How do you know it is ME? Fake video and Equikits will have an unexpected large effect on all society.
      • Well, no evidence of any kind should be considered admissible without a documented chain of custody.

        What the jury should consider is whether the evidence may have been "tampered" with before entering custody, or during custody.
      • Of assistance, would be studying the law.

        A lot of child porn legislation mentions "depiction," as a crime.

        So, whether real or fake, if it looks like child porn, it is.

        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          Which is fundamentally unconstitutional, not that it will ever be challenged. The SCOTUS carved out a special exemption to the first amendment to ban child porn, on the basis of the social harm involved. Basically, banning child porn is OK because it's a roundabout way to avoid harm to children, not a content-based ban. But a "depiction" involving no harm to children? Doesn't fit the rationale, as that's purely content-based prior restraint. Not that anyone is likely to challenge such laws - no modern-

      • For example, now that I know this is so easy to do, if I'm ever on a jury, I can't really consider any video evidence as enough for a criminal conviction

        The term you're looking for is "beyond reasonable doubt". Not every video automagically qualifies just because someone somewhere has the technology to make a fake (pro tip: That has been the case for MANY years).

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      There's already a plethora of porn with short, skinny and flat-chested barely-legal women dressed and acting like barely post-pubescent girls, and that's *actually* fake, or at least the 18 US xxxx notice that says they're over 18 says it ought to be fake.

      I'm not sure how swapping faces does much to solve kiddie porn other than masking who the actually abused kids are, or worse, using the aforementioned skinny young porn actresses and putting real kids' faces on them.

      I suspect that *this* is actually the Bl

      • by Adriax ( 746043 )

        Face swap a VR porn video.

      • Why do you think so? As soon as this tech goes mainstream, it's going to be easier to explain "it's not really me", not more difficult.
        • by swb ( 14022 )

          Maybe. Everybody knows about "Photoshopping" but it's still not easy to deny a compelling faked photo.

          I think video will be harder to deny (with motion, etc, adding realism) and it will take longer for the public (over 16 years old) to grasp how possible the technology is.

          • by denzacar ( 181829 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @05:43PM (#55995807) Journal

            but it's still not easy to deny a compelling faked photo.

            Most of them will be quite easy to deny, simply by finding and presenting the original porn video.

            Of course, that will require extensive knowledge of porn lore... or a video-frame-recognition algorithm with access to a database of all the porn ever made.
            But until such algorithm is released to the public... it is up to us, ordinary humans, to take on the thankless job of porn forensics.
            It's a dirty job. But that's what the tissues are for.

      • Maybe it would finally knock sex off its high pedestal and trivialize it enough to become just ordinary entertainment, like watching a movie or having supper at a restaurant. At the same time, it would hopefully unlink sex and deep feelings, because currently if someone's banging his wife's best friend it's a huge scandal, even though they're simply doing it for fun.

        • by dkman ( 863999 )

          Not likely.

          All it is is "legalizing morality". America has a deep-seated history of doing that stupidity.

          Although we've made some steps in the right direction there are a lot of people trying to fight it.

        • Choosing to bang your 'wife's best friend' (which is an old English euphemism for your junk BTW. Cite: Python 'Isn't it awfully nice to have a penis...'), of all the women in the world, tells me that you already have 'deeply hurt feelings' and are trying to cause as much pain as possible.

          Her sister on the other hand.

          • That's a society-based measure, stemming from the fact that sex is perceived as much more than it actually is.
            People's feelings are hurt by this because they're educated that way. They're being taught "it's a bad thing" because in the past (aka "before safe contraception and abortion") it actually was a bad thing: it had serious consequences. In today's civilized society those consequences are gone, and all that's left is the perception.

            • Many species of animal pair bond. Humans don't pair bond for life.

              Pretending that there is nothing to that or that it's 100% socially constructed is insane, 'assume your desired answer' type thinking.

              Even gay men get bitchy and jealous.

              • Sorry but don't compare intelligent species with non-intelligent species. Makes no sense.
                Also it makes no sense to link sex and pair bonding. One has nothing to do with the other unless you glorify sex, making it be more important than it is.

                • You think we've evolved past it?

                  Humans have _more_ evolutionary need for pairbonds, as our huge headed offspring are helpless for longer than just about any other species.

                  Pair bonding is clearly an evolutionary adaptation to increase the survival rate of offspring. Species where the mother drops then abandons the kids don't pair bond, species where parents feed and raise the kids do. Sex and pair bonding are inexorably linked.

                  • Humans have _more_ evolutionary need for pairbonds, as our huge headed offspring are helpless for longer than just about any other species.

                    Pair bonding is clearly an evolutionary adaptation to increase the survival rate of offspring. Species where the mother drops then abandons the kids don't pair bond, species where parents feed and raise the kids do. Sex and pair bonding are inexorably linked.

                    Again you're comparing to mindless species.
                    Certain tribes have adopted group raising of children and it worked very well.
                    And the big, big mistake you are making is assuming that the sole purpose of sex is procreation. Indeed, for all other species it is. And it used to be true for humans until very recently (say last 50 years or so). What you and most other people are incapable of is realizing that assumption is now wrong. Sex now has an entertainment value, which can be enjoyed without inexorably linking i

                    • Your brain is the product of millions of years of evolution. 50 years in nothing.

                      Even gay men, the ultimate 'seeking friction' population, pair bond.

                      It's rooted in biology and raising offspring.

                • by lgw ( 121541 )

                  Sorry but don't compare intelligent species with non-intelligent species. Makes no sense.

                  You know nothing about psychology (or neurology).

                  Also it makes no sense to link sex and pair bonding

                  You know nothing about psychology.

                  One has nothing to do with the other unless you glorify sex, making it be more important than it is.

                  You know nothing about psychology (or neurology).

                  You're just making shit up.

        • Maybe it would finally knock sex off its high pedestal and trivialize it enough to become just ordinary entertainment, like watching a movie or having supper at a restaurant.

          Most of us avoid restaurants and theaters where a random stranger may ejaculate on us.

          At the same time, it would hopefully unlink sex and deep feelings, because currently if someone's banging his wife's best friend it's a huge scandal, even though they're simply doing it for fun.

          Something tells me that your best friend might see such a situation... differently.
          My advice is that you should continue to keep close watch of his whereabouts.

          • Unlike most others (who are deeply rooted in traditional upbringing) I don't have double standards regarding sex.

            • Unlike most others (who are deeply rooted in traditional upbringing) I don't have double standards regarding sex.

              You should tattoo that somewhere visible. Like on your head.
              The forehead one, not the foreskin one.

              You know... to simplify things. From dates to divorces.

              Just remember to include an explanation WTF all that means.
              Tattooing a footnote (or a leg note, or a back note...) should come in handy with that.

        • You can't unlink deep feelings from sex without changing humanity, because we're talking about the drive to procreate here. It's fundamental, it's biological, and it's chemical.

      • Except these will leak out and it will become difficult to explain "it's not really me". We think exploitation via sexting pics or sex tapes is bad, it's got to be worse when it's not just a nude selfie but a realistic depiction of your wife/daughter/friend getting double-penetrated by two giants.

        Society will eventually adapt.
        What's your first reaction if someone showed a hardcore photo of a colleague of yours doing thing that you would never suspected them doing ? "Photoshoped" is probably the first things that will go through your mind.
        5 years down from now the word "FakeApped" will probably be accepted in the the dictionnary.

        or worse, using the aforementioned skinny young porn actresses and putting real kids' faces on them.

        Why is it "worse" ?
        No actual kid got hurt in the making of it.
        Only some "stock photo" website's collection got download and fed into an deep neural net.

        Or another way to put

    • that people who are procuring illegal (in particular, kiddie) porn could then hide behind the response of "I thought it was fake".

      Even fictional visual depictions of child porn [cornell.edu] are illegal.

      (c)Nonrequired Element of Offense.â"
      It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

      If it looks like a child and is porn, it's illegal. So "I thought it was fake" doesn't work as an excuse. The reasoning for this is that fictional depictions of child porn cou

      • 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High' is a fictional visual depiction of child porn. So is 'Porky's', so is 'Animal House' etc etc

        Some of the naked characters were high school students.

  • by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @03:07PM (#55994561) Homepage

    Let's see who we wouldn't want to be able to visualize (in any way) having sex:
    - Ernest Borgnine
    - Marty Feldman
    - Either of the Olson twins
    - Steve Buscemi
    - Vincent Schiavelli
    - Whoopi Goldberg
    - Christopher Walken
    - Clint Howard
    - Jack Elam
    - Madonna

    I'll skiip the obvious political ones.

    • by ttsai ( 135075 )

      Satire and political commentary are one thing, but revenge porn is something entirely different. Not that I'm advocating banning these tools, but I can easily imagine teenagers et al. using this for revenge, embarrassment, and bullying.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      - Either of the Olson twins

      Why not [pinimg.com]? This would be roughly 2003 and legal where I live... if you don't want it I'll take both please.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Or actually no it wouldn't... having sex with them would be okay, but they're 17y3m so that would be "child" porn. Go figure...

        • Not in my country, it wouldn't.
          16 and above is a misdemeanor if there's consent. You'd get away with a warning if it ever gets there, e.g. if her mom complains.

      • by PPH ( 736903 )

        This would be roughly 2003

        But today. No thanks [quickmeme.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I did some, err, research, for science... And it turns out that you need to find a model who looks kinda like the celebrity and video which doesn't show their face at odd angles it can't cope with for it to work properly.

      I can see a new industry starting up, with look-a-like porn stars who produce videos specially shot to suit face replacement.

      As well as celebrity lawsuits I expect there will be a lot of blackmail and kids in court for putting a classmates face on some porn.

      • by chill ( 34294 )

        Step 1: Using free 3D software, such as Blender, download a generic "head" wireframe model.
        Step 2: Map the straight photo onto the 3D model.
        Step 3: Rotate the model to a few odd angles, then render realistic stills.
        Step 4: Use the soon-to-be-updated software to use multiple images you now have to create a more realistic face swap.

    • ...so I'm not sure how good they'd be in a porno.
      • Maybe make it also be a takeoff of the music video Thriller. Viewers love zombies.

      • Things I learned on the internet, that I'd rather not know.

        Necrophiles group themselves into two camps. Moldy oldies and gooey Louie's.

        Thought I'd share.

    • I'll skiip the obvious political ones.

      Trump and Clinton with Bernie as a supporting role?
      !NOT SAFE FOR WORK! >> https://www.pornhub.com/view_v... [pornhub.com] !NOT SAFE FOR WORK!

    • Let's see who we wouldn't want to be able to visualize (in any way) having sex:
      [...]
      - Madonna

      I'll skiip the obvious political ones.

      Sorry dude, Maddona did a porn when she was young and unknown, it surfaced a few years later...

      Hairy armpits and all!

    • This is going to give new meaning to "Fake News"...

    • by sootman ( 158191 )

      I notice Bea Arthur is conspicuously missing from your list... I hear ya.

  • The future is now, old man.

  • This is a big deal, in the longer term, but not because it stirs up a hornet's nest of kompromat as usual.

    When every rumour is true, no rumour is true.

    Slowly, but surely, this will ultimately devalue prurience.

    Still, it will be pretty embarrassing to be caught doing your homework [tvtropes.org], not with Natalie Portman 2.0 (hey, dude, bump my phone), but the sweet young thing who sits beside you in English class baring her soul implausibly, while perfecting her special calligraphy.

    The other directions this could go is so

  • by imperious_rex ( 845595 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @04:06PM (#55995029)
    Face swapping in porn vids is a cute trick, but it doesn't take a genius to see the implications of this technology, especially when combined with synthetic voice technology being able to accurately impersonate anybody's voice [gizmodo.com] with just a 1 minute sample. If you thought Photoshop fakery for political gain was bad (for example, the darkened pic of OJ on the cover of Time or the fake John Kerry/Jane Fonda pic from the 2004 election), we're now on the verge of a new era of video fakery for spreading lies, disinformation, and smear campaigns. It used to be said that "pictures never lie" but Photoshop put an end to that (yes, I know photo manipulation has been practiced for decades in the analog age, but it was generally beyond the capability of the average person). With video, the best one could do was to use clever editing to discredit somebody (as happened to Shirley Sherrod [wikipedia.org]). Not anymore. Now anybody can make a scandalous video. If these deepfakes can be done by one person with a desktop PC, what can an organization with deep pockets accomplish?
    • If these deepfakes can be done by one person with a desktop PC, what can an organization with deep pockets accomplish?

      ... deeperfakes?

    • by jep77 ( 1357465 )

      Alibis and Evidence and, depending on who's driving, it'll be the best thing since sliced bread or the most evil thing since... well, evil things.

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      I'm thinking that is potentially a good thing. It will end the era of "omg scandal video". A leaked video will no longer have the potential to ruin someone's career, as it could be real or fake and we will likely never know.

      It might also end the despiccable professione of the paparazzi. You don't need to hunt celebrities around the world for that one blurry sunbathing-topless picture - anyway nobody will believe it's real.

    • If these deepfakes can be done by one person with a desktop PC, what can an organization with deep pockets accomplish?

      You should actually be asking "what have they already done?"

  • Can't wait (Score:5, Funny)

    by NEDHead ( 1651195 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @04:29PM (#55995253)

    Trump's head, Putin's body, Ivanka, and Bannon waiting his turn

  • You're telling me that I can do this for myself and my beloved? Sounds like a great valentine's day gift. It'd be fun, and exciting (underlined and italicized) to see ourselves with professional endurance, athletic bodies, and decent lighting. And I wouldn't mind envisioning my beloved doing things that she'd never ever be able (or willing) to do!

  • by tgibson ( 131396 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @06:13PM (#55995995) Homepage

    political figures and rename it "Deep State".

  • by millertym ( 1946872 ) on Wednesday January 24, 2018 @08:08PM (#55996601)

    Adding this to my "The unibomber was right" list of proofs.

Forty two.

Working...