...If you were watching CBS's '60 Minutes' last Sunday, you would've seen a segment on 'deep fake' technology (the go-to example was the 'Tom Cruise deep fake' videos, where the producer actually used a TC impersonator to make the fakes even more realistic).

One tech writer predicted that "certainly within 5 years" the technology to make deep fakes will be available to the average (not expert) web user. It didn't take much to envision this tech being used for wam (esp. seeing how the porn industry is leading the way, as always, with the use of 'celebrity deep fakes' for porn videos).

I'm not sure how i feel about the ethics of doing this with wam (or any other kink) -- certainly not ethical (imo) to do it to make money. Then again, I see it becoming quite common place (and there are a few folks here who have been doing fairly decent GIF / photo-shopped animations of pied celebrities for several years now).

So, once this tech becomes pervasive...how far do you see it going? What do you imagine might be the unintentional consequences of this?

Putting aside their (political) use for mis/disinformation...

I can foresee lawsuits (over image copyrights, defamation, etc.).

Thoughts?

We will finally be able to repair that Olivia Munn debacle!

Keep in mind though that even today "Messy" style animations are very difficult to make.
With deep fakes the best you're looking at in the relatively near future is reactions followed by spliced footage or something. You won't be getting believable messy vids anytime soon. Hate to burst your bubble.

Can't wait to see them on the girls wearing sweaters.

I'd like to toss in my completely non iinformed viewpoint here.

As someone who has been involved in a variety of tech debuts over the years I remember being told repeatedly by a number of tech people the equivalent of "Yeah, this will never become usable or affordable or even exist for the average person."

That includes:

Electric trucks
Streaming radio
Satellite radio
CD recording
DVD recording
Home computers
Seeing faces on phones
Flying cars (Damn it, where ARE those?)

And quite a bit more.

Are deep WAM fakes in our future? Who knows....ya know?

Robby

yes...'always in motion the future is.' (Yoda)

You're not 'bursting my bubble', protostar8...the post was speculative and inquisitive (what's in development, what people think, etc.)...the tech is rapidly improving and (as noted elsewhere with the porn examples -- some involving 'facials', no doubt) the challenge of making a realistic splat on the (fake) celebrity face effect will doubtless be surmounted soon (e.g., incorporating a Brownian motion algorithm with a 'micro-edit' insert at the right moment, undetectable to the eye).

I concur with Robby's observation, basically, today's impossible technological hurdle is tomorrow's everyday (consumer) capability.

Robby: we may not yet have Jetson style flying cars, but we do have scaled-up drone (quadcopter) personal transport vehicles currently in development and testing phase (note: telephone wires could be an issue).

Deep faking won't be authentic. This would be cool back in the AOL days before all the massively uploaded non-fakes that exist.

Might be a new niche for some, but for me, fake is fake, unless it's part of the bit. Someone puts up a video and claims it's Olivia Munn doing a new pie video and it's clearly fake, ehhhhh. I'd much rather see a hot model jump into the pie herself.

But gimme a scene where a real model is playing an Olivia Munn "stunt double" and standing in for a vast array of messy stunts Olivia Munn won't do? I'd watch the hell out of that.

Actually, damn, this may be a custom I need to commission...

I feel that this is already possible to an extent depending on what you are looking for. I have personally been doing this for some time now using a combination of deep fake tech and photoshop. It's not perfect and by no means would you be able to convince someone it's authentic, but as long as you are willing to suspend your disbelief it can illustrate something that in reality is pure fantasy.

I didn't read all the posts here..... But I'm pretty sure I get the gist of what everyone is talking about.
I just like to say I'd rather see any member of UMD, over any celebrity out there. Just not a big fan of Hollywood or any of the people in it anymore.
BUT...... If Rita Monero wanted to hit me in the face with a cream pie, I certainly wouldn't say no.

I find a lot around deep fakes to be both worrying and unethical

arguably of course from a compliance point of view - anyone trying it for commercial obviously wouldn't have IDs and release forms - and anyone uploading to sites like youtube are going to be hit by takedown requests

Obviously of course there's plenty of off-grid pirate and non-compliant streaming sites - but using them doesn't keep in good company

From a serious stand point the biggest problem is that we will lose a big piece of evidence in criminal investigations as everyone will claim DEEP FAKE (I mean some already do)

I can see this quickly becoming outlawed under wider rules to protect the integrity of anybody in public life. If it's possible to CGI a pie in the face it would certainly be possible to fake the use of an offensive gesture or comment, or a candid sex tape, and once celebrities and politicians are wary of this they will move to shut it down, and as someone else commented no legit video hosting site will defy that.

In any case I've always been much more attracted to seeing 'real' girl next door women wammed rather than plastic celebrities.

Rut Roh Rorge. Yep, telephone wires could be an issue with drones. But wires won't compare to the people who decided "Drone Shooting" should be made an Olympic sport.

"Yeehaw! Look at that Wilbur. We just got ourselves a free pepperoni pizza!"

Flying cars were invented in the 70s - Bullit, Starsky and Hutch, Dirty Harry...

Skeet shooting for prizes!