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.
FINALLY (Score:3, Funny)
My OPRAH PORN dream is coming true !!
Re:FINALLY (Score:5, Funny)
Hillary pegging Bill for the nightmare win.
Aw, Geez... Don't Call Them "Redditors" (Score:2)
Re:FINALLY (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
LOL. All of the narcissistic people who put their pictures online are going to suddenly start appearing in gay porn videos.
YOU! I learned it from YOU! (Score:2)
SKYNET's gonna be a celebrity obsessed pervert.
Re: (Score:2)
Skynet will achieve consciousness reading the nastier parts of the Internet and nuke the crap out of us. Quite rightly so.
Re: (Score:2)
Skynet will be born out of Facebook and Google's human behavior manipulation and prediction research.
Machine learning applied to the control of humans through selected implantation of images and phrases, modulated through content shaping across all of their devices, will form the foundation of the system. The delivery system which decides in real time what controlled and curated content needs to be introduced to the subjects to generate the intended response or cascade within the subject will be the piece t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FINALLY (Score:3)
The only downside I see to this ... (Score:3)
Re:The only downside I see to this ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The only downside I see to this ... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Although the opposite seems to be the case:
http://thehill.com/opinion/whi... [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had your level of optimism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the jury should consider is whether the evidence may have been "tampered" with before entering custody, or during custody.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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-
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re:The only downside I see to this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. If I simply overwrite data, it's gone - it is irreversible. The simplest example is setting a pixel to black; the algorithm is completely lossy - you can never reconstruct the original pixel.
Re: The only downside I see to this ... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think he's watched CIS too many times.
Re: (Score:2)
easy for CSI (Score:3)
what about CSI though?
They would zoom in to the character's eyeball showing a reflection of the original studio and photographer. They would then zoom in to the camera lens in this picture showing the original scene from which the imposed face was taken, showing it was fake.
As an encore they would find a "fingerprint of the computer" used to manipulate it, look up the IP address of this and then track it to a particular room in a house. If it were CSI Miami Horatio Caine would arrest the computer user with some cringe-worthy co
Re:The only downside I see to this ... (Score:4, Funny)
Uncrop. [dailymotion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, now you are adding a whole bunch of qualifiers that make the statement a lot less crazy. The original comment was "As with any computer type of computer operation you should be able to reverse the algorithm", and I showed how even a trivial algorithm can be non-reversible.
In this context, the algorithm is a lot more likely to be irreversible than reversible. This isn't applying a filter to a video - it is more like applying a stretchy mask to a video... anything under the mask is never coming back exc
Re: (Score:2)
If the person who rigged the video for the jury or political scandal was stupid enough to lift the original from PornHub, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
As with any computer type of computer operation you should be able to reverse the algorithm to obtain the original footage.
You must be that dude who writes all the "nerd guy" dialog for TV crime shows. I'm sorry to say, but that's not quite how computer types of computer operations work.
Re: (Score:2)
My output:
snw mxs wthrin,mymoher ees clligm byyboter nae
My algorithm:
Starting at the first character, I chose a random number between 0 and 3 to advanced the cursor, then chose a random number of 1 or 2 for how many characters to delete (Then repeat until end of sentence)
Your challenge:
You have my output and my algorithm. Please reverse it to provide the original sentence I used.
Hint:
The original was a 3 line haiku using commas to separate the lines.
Unfortunately for you, one of the two commas looks to be one of the characters chosen to be deleted.
snow mixes with rain,
my mother keeps calling me,
by my brother's name
But I see your point - transformational algorithms are not necessarily easily reversible.
Re: (Score:2)
Snow mixes with rain
my mother keeps calling me
by my brother's name
Re: (Score:2)
That's probably true this month...or at least up until last month.
Even digital signatures aren't that good. Not unless they are watermarks, which basically counts as steganography. If they're just meta-data you can chop them off and replace the entire series with a consistently regenerated version. (If they're watermarks, that's likely to leave a detectable residue, even if not reconstructible. This month. Unless done by some government agency...or a major corporation.)
Two things are going on here:
1) E
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Face swap a VR porn video.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:The only downside I see to this ... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Married, two kids, never cheated on my wife. Didn't feel the need.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike most others (who are deeply rooted in traditional upbringing) I don't have double standards regarding sex.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to be skeptical, I couldn't care less.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only the US. But in time, through many small hits, the perception will erode away.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just about deep feelings. If your wife is banging other people for fun, who pays the bills for the next 18 years when she winds up pregnant?
Condoms are cheap, abortion is legal. If she messes up THAT badly despite the widely available solutions, she, as an adult, can deal with the consequences.
If she catches an STD, brings it home and infects you, your life could be cut short through no fault of your own. Sex is great fun, sure, but there ARE other serious considerations besides the pleasurable aspects.
Same as above: condoms are cheap. Carefully choosing partners is a common sense thing. Going to bang a random smelly stranger in a bar with no protection is retarded - and there's no fix for stupid, but that's valid for everything from "wear a helmet when on a motorcycle" to "don't drink and drive" and so on.
Society will adapt (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Even fictional visual depictions of child porn [cornell.edu] are illegal.
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
Re: (Score:2)
'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.
Oh the Humanity! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
- 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be roughly 2003
But today. No thanks [quickmeme.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Well, some of them are dead... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe make it also be a takeoff of the music video Thriller. Viewers love zombies.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
This is going to give new meaning to "Fake News"...
Re: (Score:2)
I notice Bea Arthur is conspicuously missing from your list... I hear ya.
The future... (Score:2)
The future is now, old man.
once every rumour is true, no rumour is true (Score:2)
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
The Veracity of Video is Dead (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
... deeperfakes?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Trump's head, Putin's body, Ivanka, and Bannon waiting his turn
Sounds like a lot of fun (Score:2)
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!
Guaranteed. Someone will reface a porn movie with (Score:4, Funny)
political figures and rename it "Deep State".
Slow clap and slowly back away and out of the room (Score:3)
Adding this to my "The unibomber was right" list of proofs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
From the article:
The subreddit’s wiki states that FakeApp is “a community-developed desktop app to run the deepfakes algorithm without installing Python, Tensorflow, etc.,” and that all one needs to run it is a “good GPU [graphics processing unit, the kind that high-end 3D video games require] with CUDA support [NVIDIA’s parallel computing platform and programming model].”
So this now seems independent of TensorFlow.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry. We Kremlin trolls use TensorFlowski, the Russian version.
Re: (Score:2)
In soviet Russia, every time you kill a kitten...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "free" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If this is now stupid simple to do, so that anyone who can download the tools can create a convincing face swap video, why would this be limited to porn? Someone wanting to ruin someone's reputation could easily swap them into any video. Even if the original is surfaced later to prove the fake, at the speed with which these things spread on 'social' media, the damage will have been done.
For a while, maybe. But after a certain period, people would just start ignoring all the shit.
I remember when photoshopping a chicken head onto a seal's body was amazing, today people wouldn't even look at it for a second.
Re: (Score:2)
I would if it were a hot looking seal.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the last time this came up the consensus was that it was "sorta, kinda good", but wouldn't be fooling any courts of law any time soon.
Re: (Score:3)
I read an article by a data analytics guy for an online dating company in which he noted that while there was a positive correlation between attractiveness ratings of profile pictures and attempted contacts, profile pictures with the greatest variance in ratings got the most interest of all.
In other words your best bet is not to be conventionally pretty, but to appeal strongly to unconventional tastes.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't throw me in that briar patch.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet that the lower powered "convincing fakes" are still easily detectable. I'd also bet that arbitrarily good fakes can be made by anyone willing to put the time, money, and effort into it. Currently that probably only means governments and major corporations...but wait a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Rodeo sex...doggy, call her by her sisters name and try to hang on for 8 seconds, holding her by the hair with only one hand.