Talk:Deepfake

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zfujita, RebortReport, Ahnmelis. Peer reviewers: OrganicSalt, Avnishna, Immason1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 2 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rachelkmoy. Peer reviewers: Esk00, Brandonqin, Ethanpak, RiaVora, Dalexandertom, Kyle.chan201.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pornographic aspects in the lead

It seems strange to instantly mention the pornographic aspects right in the, what, third sentence? In the "introduction" part of the article, anyway. It comes off as reductive of a technology that can have widespread uses.--83.192.75.196 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

It reflects the view of the majority of the sources. Wqwt (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The intro also seems to define it very narrowly as something like 'pasting one person's face on another's body' even though later sections describe other types of manipulations which don't involve faces at all.72.60.225.105 (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Far from being "strange" in mentioning pornographic aspects in relation to Deepfakes, is not this article carrying out a public service in warning about the widespread and negative uses of this technology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.251 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Why the feminist theory?

This is a matter of computer science. There are ways in which it can be used - as in 'revenge porn', but social science claims as to the motivation behind 'revenge porn' is outside the scope of this topic. I personally find the claim that it's the purpose of the technology to “control and humiliate women" ridiculous, but I left it in. Please not though that this is merely someone's opinion

EDIT: Just checked out the source. It's not even an expert opinion for god's sake. It that of a random columnist.

It is ridiculous. The purpose of deepfakes themselves is to manipulate video. The main reason for porn deepfakes is for use as a fantasy for people who are erotically stimulated visually. I think the court records would show that there's orders of magnitude more people controlling what others are allowed to masturbate to than there are people using it for the purpose of humiliation, and in the cases where it is, it's as a statement of disrespect towards the victims rather than as a means to control them. If lying with words gets a free pass then lying with video ought to too 😄 Bitplane (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be a bit more impartial?

The positive aspects of this emerging technology are being excluded, it is unjustly being treated negatively. Couldn't this be used as a tool to make animations, Japanese-style Cartoons, or possibly videogames that look very realistic? Making fake videos of real people should be regulated, but this technology should not be treated with this much prejudice. An Encyclopedia should present facts in a balanced way; positives AND negatives.108.224.106.197 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources (WP:RS) and what volunteer editors want to contribute. If you can find reliable sources that talk about the positive aspects of deepfakes, I'll be happy to add them into the article. Wqwt (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

While I understand that deepfakes use emerging technology, the word "fake" in the term "deepfake" implies fraudulent activity. A deepfake is an attempt to deceive with negative intent. In your example, using this technology to make cartoons and video games more realistic is merely the application of new special effects and is not an example of a deepfake. There are no positive examples where the term "deepfake" can genuinely be applied (except in comparison to fraudulent examples). Perhaps there is a better term for these positive examples or we need a new one. For example, it is not correct to call Gollum from the Lord of the Rings movies a deepfake sockpuppet, but according to this article, as it stands, this claim could be made.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Egag21 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 September 2021 {UTC) (UTC)</sthli

Then again, given that the "positive" aspects of this technology seem to be limited, then is not this article treating the issue fairly? For it is the use of this commputer tool - to make life-like animations - that opens the door to a real concerns. Also, does not the requirement for Deepfakes to be regulated point to the need for this technology to be treated with some concern?

I am surprised I don't see the recent Mark Zuckerberg Deepfake mentioned anywhere

Or was it added and deleted by others? https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/11/tech/zuckerberg-deepfake/index.html ----Bernburgerin (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Update

The article makes little mention of the proliferation of deepfake pornography sites. Instead it focuses on specific large web sites and their attempts to scrub it. It tends to give the read an incorrect impression. As far as I can tell porn deepfakes are easily accessed and are becoming a genre of porn especially at tube sites. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Deepfake revenge porn against non-celebs

Here’s What It’s Like To See Yourself In A Deepfake Porn Video, might be useful to speak to this aspect. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Image example?

I think we need a image to demonstrate what deepfakes may look like. Obviously we can't use pornography, but there has been clothed demonstration clips also floating around. One such could be from this video which has been buzzing in some media, but that would be fair use and I don't think it matches WP:NFCC. Anyone know of any free content non-nude deepfakes? How do you even determine the copyright status of deepfakes? Gaioa (T C L) 07:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Concerned about a particular source's usage

So I'm doing editing to the "Deepfake software" section of the article and come across this citation, I check out the citation and it doesn't seem to support the particular stuff said in the article where it is cited. Here's the full context of what I'm looking at, see reference 45. It does however look like a pretty good source which we could use elsewhere. Could someone look into this and figure out what exactly should be done? Thanks --Apathetizer (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It's only a Master's thesis and isn't cited anywhere, so it fails WP:RS and I've Removed it. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Gif

The two images in the gif are too small to be easily distinguished. Koro Neil (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Some Ideas to Add to the Article, & Sources

Updated regulations concerning deepfakes; Companies like Instagram , Twitter, US Department of Defense; Advancements in the technology; major events/ occurrences where deepfakes were trending

Sources: Articles https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/synthetic_manipulated_media_policy_feedback.html (Twitter's action regarding manipulated media) https://ai.facebook.com/blog/deepfake-detection-challenge-results-an-open-initiative-to-advance-ai/ (Facebook's Deepfake Challenge to advance AI and create solutions to detect deepfakes) https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/05/23/142770/the-us-military-is-funding-an-effort-to-catch-deepfakes-and-other-ai-trickery/ (DARPA's attention to deepfakes)

Journals & Publications https://studios.disneyresearch.com/2020/06/29/high-resolution-neural-face-swapping-for-visual-effects/ (Disney's Research efforts towards high resolution face swapping) https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep25783.6?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents (How deepfakes may affect the financial system, how big is the threat, how easy is it to combat, identity theft) Rachelkmoy (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Review

The article started off very strong and had a comprehensive, yet brief overview of the subject. After reading it, I felt like I had a solid understanding of the general topic, as well as an understanding of the further direction of the article. Additionally, I particularly enjoyed the overall organization and layout of the article and thought it was really precisely done. For instance, revealing and explaining the various "Concerns" and then immediately following with the "Responses" was very smart and informative. That being said, and as it was raised by another contributor, I think the article should possibly include a section or information about the positive uses of "deepfakes." As it currently stands, the article reads very negative and highlights only concerns with this technology/topic, but not the positives. By including information about this, the article will be more balanced, and I think this is the most important contribution that can be added to the page. Furthermore, I think there could be more examples or statistics added to the "Fraud" subheading. While there is currently one example, it would be more informative to have more examples, or better yet, statistics to show the prevalence of "deepfakes" in fraud. That being said, there were no grammatical errors and the overall page did read very encyclopedic. Finally, looking at the sources, everything seemed to be cited to a source, and the sources seemed reliable and credible. Ethanpak (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Talk about a back-handed complement

Given that this article is said to start off with a "comprehensive" overview of the subject, that it has a "solid understanding of the general topic" and that it gives responses that were "very smart and informative", then how can the article be attacked as being "very negative"?

Then again, how can the article highlight "only concerns with this technology, but not the positives" - if there are few positives to report? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.75.23 (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Better example image.

Can we not do better than this? The example image description states it's trying to face-mash female actress Amy Adams to male actor Nicolas Cage. It looks terrible. It's a horrible example of the power of this technology, trying to face-mash a man and a woman.

A much better example would be this .gif I quickly googled "Deep fake" for and found, of Jimmy Fallon in full makeup impersonating Trump. https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2019/06/19/trump_fallon_side.gif

Another great example is this full scene of Back to the Future with "Doc Brown" Christopher Lloyd replaced with Robert Downey Jr. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OJnkJqkyio

I would try to make the changes myself, I just don't know all the legal ownership rights stuff it takes to link a new example image here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack insomniac1911 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

New article needed: the liar's dividend

New article needed: the liar's dividend. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't the original deepfake paper have prominence?

I came here because I forgot the name of the original deepfake paper that kicked off the trend and wanted to find the video. But this page is filled with everything but that. It ought to be mentioned in the first few lines IMO. 2A02:C7C:2C4D:4500:DD26:2E36:131C:659C (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2022 and 15 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jcham04.

— Assignment last updated by Zariagibson (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

'Gaming Presidents'

Notable addition to the Internet Meme section, voice AI videos of Joe Biden, Joe Rogan, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump in mostly absurd conversation while gaming, which went super viral on Twitter and Tiktok an received plenty of media coverage recently.

https://www.polygon.com/23610381/presidents-play-minecraft-ai-voice-meme-joe-biden-trump

https://www.insider.com/ai-voices-of-politicians-and-influencers-are-taking-over-tiktok-2023-2

https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/ai-conversation-trump-obama-biden

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ai-presidents-gaming-biden-and-trump-gaming

--jonas (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 May 2023 and 10 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nonasus (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nonasus (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Deepfake app

[1] Guardian article attempts to doxx someone who sells a deepfake app. I think it is RS enough to mention here. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:2F14 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Deepfake in politics, any article or draft?

There are latest news (BBC, Al JAzeera) from India about use of generative AI in politics. In last held elections in Pakistan too news were there. Presently there is one embedded list section Deepfake#Politics incidences, but I have not come across proper encyclopedic prose. I am not sure that is enough and may be scope for separate article. Would like to know if I missed any article or if any one working on a draft on this topic in draft namespace or user namespace? Bookku (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Improving our sourcing

I recommend gradually rewriting this based on academic books (free on Wikipedia Library) and papers that summarize the research. Current article is mostly pieced together from news, trivia, and old articles. WP:BESTSOURCEs are more comprehensive and provide more context and analysis, and would make this page more accessible to our non-technical readers, not less. Deepfakes (2022) seems like a good place to start. DFlhb (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)