Surprised the 2008 Iranian missile fake didn't make it in! This was one the demo images we used to show off our forgery detection software in the early days of Inscribe before we focused in on documents as a company.<p><a href="https://www.npr.org/2008/07/11/92442928/photo-of-irans-missile-launch-was-manipulated" rel="nofollow">https://www.npr.org/2008/07/11/92442928/photo-of-irans-missi...</a>
Thought it might be a fun exercise to see how little time it would take to create similar approximations of the original deepfakes using GenAI models.<p><a href="https://mordenstar.com/blog/historic-deepfakes-with-ai" rel="nofollow">https://mordenstar.com/blog/historic-deepfakes-with-ai</a>
It was actually just yesterday when I decided youtube shorts are no longer a fun way to kill time. There's a lot of amazing stuff to watch, but it's no fun any more, because anything you see that seems amazing is likely to be AI Generated which, for me, ruins it. You're not watching videos of reality, you're basically looking at digital art at this point.<p>Photos, Videos, and Audio are longer "proof" of anything. Any 10 year old kid can generate basically anything he wants. I love AI, but it's sad to be living in a world where now 'Authenticity' itself is permanently dead.
What qualifies the Jennifer in Paradise photo being in there? That photo reportedly is real, even according to the description given.<p>It was used as a demonstration photo in a famous photo-editing program which was used to fool the world, but the image is ostensibly a real photo, not a fake image.
I agree photo manipulation has always happened, to various degrees of perfection, since the dawn of photography.<p>I suppose the real difference is that before it took a more artisanal, time-consuming process, and now -- increasingly -- it takes far less time to create something convincing enough. Same with video: you could fake a video, do editing, etc, but it took time, skill, a location where to shoot, etc. Now it's becoming easier to do for everyone. And it's not perfect yet, but are we sure it won't get there? And it doesn't <i>have</i> to be perfect anyway, it just has to fool most people in a given window of time.
A great example that underscores the <i>ordinariness</i> of AI. It's a tool and tools can be used for good/bad/neither and inbetween.<p>Fake pics have existed since pics existed pretty much.<p>Kids have been looking for ways to cheat on tests since tests began. If you're a teacher, you're gonna have to test in person.<p>Fake phone calls, fake other things... yea they're of a different/better quality as the technology has gotten better. Is it so fundamental a shift that nothing can be done? I'm not convinced.
The article is interesting, but I think it conflates two things:<p>"Things that never happened in the real world, and have been either created synthetically or with visual trickery"<p>- Man jumping into the void.<p>- Stalin's edited photos (Stalin didn't walk without Yezov at his side).<p>- North Korea's photoshopped/cloned hovercraft.<p>- The Cottingley Fairies, Loch Ness monster, "saucer" UFOs: visual trickery or props employed to simulate the existence of beings or vehicles that don't exist in the real world.<p>- Pope with jacket is of course completely faked with AI.<p>And<p>"Things that happened, but are staged or misrepresent reality/mislead the viewer".<p>Examples:<p>- The UK soldiers abusing a prisoner. The claim was probably false (in the sense in this particlar photo these weren't British soldiers) but it's true they were soldiers from <i>some</i> country abusing a prisoner. To my knowledge no-one claimed the photo was staged, just that it was misrepresenting the situation.<p>- Capa's Falling Soldier photo. This actually happened, it's just that it's likely staged.<p>They are not the same thing, and require different levels of skill!<p>AI facilitates creating <i>anything</i>, especially completely synthetic and fake. You don't even need to go to the location to take a photo and edit it.
"By the 1940s, the image without the groom had become the standard version, and it created the enduring visual signs of the strongman leader – when Nigel Farage makes a speech atop a tank, or Vladimir Putin displays his bare chest, both are drawing on iconography developed by the Italian fascist."<p>Ah yes, equestrian portraits, something famously invented by the fascists. Someone should dig up Jacques-Louis so we can tell him he's a fascist now.
Surprised the article makes no mention of the 2023 AI-assisted enhancement of the Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot clip. It's definitely a guy in a gorilla suit.<p><a href="https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/bigfoot-footage-ai-sighting-revealed-2662025448" rel="nofollow">https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/bigfoot-footage-ai-sigh...</a>