Well at least for the future yes. It's a very worrying technology. With most technologies I like to think that maybe there's at least a positive side to it, but whenever I hear of 'deep fakes' I just see a confusing future where nobody knows what to believe, who to trust and with a government using all of this to its advantage. You could say some countries are already like that to an extent (which social media stirring the pot), but it could get much worse. Living in the woods gets more attractive by the day .

Who am I kidding, I'd realise that Google Maps didn't work and stumble into a swamp. The modern world has stripped nature from us!

I see antifa are still on the march! Was their aim trump out or politics out.
Lord of the flies anyone !

Deepfakes will be a whole new level of misinformation gone wild. If you think it's bad now, it'll be a thousand times worse once that technology becomes less specialised, and easily accessible. Have read loads on this over the last few years and no one seems to have a solution to it.

Once they're over the uncanny valley issue then that's it. It's close now but still noticeable, although for the audiences that this sort of thing will be manipulated for I'd say it's more or less there.

And, just like the internet itself, p*** seems to be the testing and development ground for it. And Hollywood, to a lesser extent.

BTW digital watermarks would most likely be just as easily faked. It may be that 'official' channels have to become end to end encrypted services not dissimilar to WhatsApp, but ultimately even those can be hacked or at the very least exploited/rerouted. If you want to earn the big bucks in the new world become a hacker, then convert and earn millions being paid to find weaknesses in digital systems. It's becoming less and less niche but can be extremely lucrative.

On a semi-humorous note the elon baby from 2019 is a highlight.

[Link]

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Are you sure?
I thought all comedy had been banned.

Off hand I'd speculate that regularly changing encrypted broadcasts can work as a digital watermark. If they could work in conjunction with TV manufacturers and other mediums...but obviously that would be a weak point in the chain. I know that serious encryption can make breaking the code expensive and long and that it's a tit for tat race between creator and hacker....I suspect those at the cutting edge have been thinking about this for quite a while.

Hopefully there's a point to paying them the big bucks.

Mind you, outside of the technological industry the 'meritocracy matched to reward' system isn't as strong as it once was.....but I won't go there on that one, I'll just p1ss myself off.

Maybe it'll just come down to simple solutions like official broadcasts twittering what the background will be thirty seconds before release as a way of identifying fakes.

The other alternative is restricting usage of the technology. That has ethical implications I don't like and probably wouldn't work anyway.

It's an interesting issue, as with every step forward there's always the chance that you step on a nail.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)