www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
How "fake news" could get even worse
By Thom Holwerda on 2017-07-16 22:52:20

No. Mr Astley did not rework his song. An artist called Mario Klingemann did, using clever software. The video is a particularly obvious example of generated media, which uses quick and basic techniques. More sophisticated technology is on the verge of being able to generate credible video and audio of anyone saying anything. This is down to progress in an artificial intelligence (AI) technique called machine learning, which allows for the generation of imagery and audio. One particular set-up, known as a generative adversarial network (GAN), works by setting a piece of software (the generative network) to make repeated attempts to create images that look real, while a separate piece of software (the adversarial network) is set up in opposition. The adversary looks at the generated images and judges whether they are "real", which is measured by similarity to those in the generative software's training database. In trying to fool the adversary, the generative software learns from its errors. Generated images currently require vast computing power, and only work at low resolution. For now.

People aren't even intelligent enough to spot obviously fake nonsense written stories, and those were enough to have an impact on the US elections. The current US president managed to "win" the elections by spouting an endless barrage of obvious lies, and the entire Brexit campaign was built on a web of obvious deceit and dishonesty.

Now imagine adding fake video into the mix where anyone can be made to say anything.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-55
.
RE: Comment by grandmasterphp
By Alfman on 2017-07-17 15:14:58
grandmasterphp,

> Like it or not Trump won fair and square and ran a good campaign. He made sure he campaigned in the swing states, Clinton didn't. Clinton's campaign was terrible in comparison, she relied on a campaign of identity politics which as we all know didn't work.


Well, there's no denying that Trump ran a terrible campaign too, especially among educated people. Hillary isn't relatable and it's quite apparent that trump's intellectual capacity is retarded. We can't forget that both candidates were extremely unpopular. Ultimately though trump won in the swing states that mattered.


This is nothing new, but arguably the electoral college is not fair because voters in red states count for more than voters in blue states. The democratic candidate has to overcome this bias. Obviously hillary won the popular vote, but lost because of the EC bias. Sucks for democrats, but those are the rules.

Another contributing factor is the political cycles. If you study US presidential history, it's extremely rare for a party win against the cycle and it's probably one of the best predictors of who will win. So for example, barrack obama was only able to win following a republican, he would not have been electable in an off cycle. For better or worse, it was the republican's turn to win.
Permalink - Score: 4
.
Nothing really new here
By Dr.Cyber on 2017-07-17 15:42:23
They have been lying to us using fake images and fake video's on the mainstream media for decades. And now I am supposed to be worried about fake news from amateurs on the internet? People are going to believe what the elite wants them to anyway. If fake news on the internet from amateurs really was so powerful then the elite would just hire a few random actors, give them an authoritative position as scientist or some other authoritative job, and make them tell us whatever they want us to believe on the news, science shows, or something else like that. Most people would believe them based on their position of authority much like people in some religions believe their priests based on their authoritative position.

Contrary to popular belief, people have not outgrown ignorance and gullibility just because they have outgrown the church. They just replaced the church with another system of blind faith. You can see your new priests on news channels and science shows every day. It's the same trick in new clothes. A new blind faith system replaces the old one.
So really fake news is nothing new.

The only way to save people from fake news is to make people think for themselves so they can defend themselves against it. Censorship is useless, because it requires giving some entity the power to censor whatever it wants and if that entity consists of humans then it will most likely abuse that power to promote it's own fake news sooner or later.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[3]: Comment by judgen
By ilovebeer on 2017-07-17 16:01:05
So you believe all the idiotic statements, all the idiotic tweets, all the idiotic decisions, all the idiocy across the board ... it's all for show. And that having (presumably) intelligent family members somehow magically make Donald Trump one himself. That's what you actually believe? That's an extremely elaborate hoax you think he's pulling off. Wouldn't it be far easier and better serving to the citizens of the US, and the world in general, if he didn't put on this "show" and didn't hide his vast knowledge & intelligence?

Or perhaps he really is the idiot he portrays because it isn't actually an act. The only thing he's mastered is the art of bullshit and as we all know, people love to buy into garbage as long as it comes in a half-convincing packaging.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[2]: Comment by grandmasterphp
By ilovebeer on 2017-07-17 16:06:07
Spot on. Unfortunately it needs to be spelled out to people who can't step back to see the bigger picture and instead get lost in the taglines and zingers.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[3]: Comment by judgen
By grat on 2017-07-17 16:41:46
> Trump is the nephew of a leading MIT EE Professor and the brother of a Federal Appeals judge. His "stupidity" is nothing more than an act. If you watch any Trump interview from the 1980s you will see an intelligent and totally rational man in action.

I find your lack of understanding of genetics disturbing. Further, while he may (or may not) have been intelligent in the 1980's, he's president 30+ years later, and hasn't displayed any particular brilliance since managing to go bankrupt off of his hotel and casino ventures.

> I guess you aren't aware that the US basically organised a coup in Ukraine to install a pro-Western stooge?

Completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, regardless of veracity. Your equivalency isn't just false, it's meaningless in this context-- It's a bit like a murder suspect claiming innocence because the police officer shot someone else.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[2]: Comment by grandmasterphp
By grandmasterphp on 2017-07-17 20:58:32
> Well, there's no denying that Trump ran a terrible campaign too, especially among educated people. Hillary isn't relatable and it's quite apparent that trump's intellectual capacity is retarded. We can't forget that both candidates were extremely unpopular. Ultimately though trump won in the swing states that mattered.

Trump spent a lot less money than Hillary and won by quite a large margin. So the facts don't mesh with your assertion it was terrible. The whole "Trump" is a dumbass I dunno how anyone can say with a straight face quite honestly.

> This is nothing new, but arguably the electoral college is not fair because voters in red states count for more than voters in blue states. The democratic candidate has to overcome this bias. Obviously hillary won the popular vote, but lost because of the EC bias. Sucks for democrats, but those are the rules.

Yes but that is another discussion. The argument for the electoral college would be that those in "Red States" would likely never be represented as it would always be a democratic president if it was done by numbers.

> Another contributing factor is the political cycles. If you study US presidential history, it's extremely rare for a party win against the cycle and it's probably one of the best predictors of who will win. So for example, barrack obama was only able to win following a republican, he would not have been electable in an off cycle. For better or worse, it was the republican's turn to win.

I dunno a lot of predictions put Bernie Winning against Trump if Bernie hadn't be shafted by his own party. Obviously we will never know. However it doesn't change the fact that Hillary's campaign was awful, also the democratic have split their supporter base because many that supported Sanders feel betrayed.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[4]: Comment by judgen
By unclefester on 2017-07-18 00:19:52
I've got a research nasters in biotechnology. I guarantee I know far more about genetics than you do.

Politics is show business for ugly people. Most politicians, like actors, have a public persona and a privae one. Teddy Roosevelt was a sickly intellectual who pretended to be a tough guy. Kennedy was a sleazy moron who pretended to be an intellectual and Dubya was a privileged Ivy League insider who acted like a Texas yokel. Putin is a highly intelligent, multilingual lawyer and world class judoku - about as far from the KGB caricature as possible.

Trump is unusual because he shows his bad side in public and his good side in private. Those that know him well say he is charming and intelligent in private.

If you weren't completely ignorant of history you would be aware that Crimea has been Russian territory for over 400 years and that Russian claim on Eastern Crimea is just as strong and legitimate as the US claim on Teaxas or California.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[5]: Comment by judgen
By _txf_ on 2017-07-18 00:29:49
>
Trump is unusual because he shows his bad side in public and his good side in private. Those that know him well say he is charming and intelligent in private.

lol

Given what we have heard from him when he didn't know he was being recorded completely disproves this.

Unless you're making the claim that all credible newspapers are completely 100% false in their reporting then this is a stupid stance. This is not even recent, there is a vast volume of reporting over decades that proves this.

The very notion that somebody would argue this makes their judgement questionable.

Edited 2017-07-18 00:33 UTC
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[3]: Comment by grandmasterphp
By Alfman on 2017-07-18 00:31:37
grandmasterphp,

> Trump spent a lot less money than Hillary and won by quite a large margin. So the facts don't mesh with your assertion it was terrible. The whole "Trump" is a dumbass I dunno how anyone can say with a straight face quite honestly.

Keep in mind, bush jr. also won, even though he wasn't especially bright either. It's true her campaign raised more, his campaign raised $1B versus hillary's $1.4B, but being a TV celebrity also helped him get unparalleled airtime.


> Yes but that is another discussion. The argument for the electoral college would be that those in "Red States" would likely never be represented as it would always be a democratic president if it was done by numbers.


There would still be two parties if everyone's vote counted equally, the politics would just have to align around the new center represented by a popular vote instead.


> I dunno a lot of predictions put Bernie Winning against Trump if Bernie hadn't be shafted by his own party. Obviously we will never know. However it doesn't change the fact that Hillary's campaign was awful, also the democratic have split their supporter base because many that supported Sanders feel betrayed.

You are right, trump benefited from divisions in the democratic party. Don't know if you remember but something similar happened with ross perot taking substantial votes away from republicans and allowing bill clinton to win twice. If it weren't for perot, clinton probably didn't have the numbers to win a second term. If the democratic party doesn't stand unified, they could loose votes again in 2020.


I'm a large proponent of switching to a rank vote so that voters could vote for the candidates and parties they really want instead of feeling obliged to vote between candidates they dislike. Heck even trump himself was for voting reform... until he got elected. And of course that's the problem with politicians including trump, they do what's best for them instead of what's best for the country.

Edited 2017-07-18 00:34 UTC
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE: Nothing really new here
By cdude on 2017-07-18 01:01:03
Well nailed down.
Permalink - Score: 2

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-40 -- 41-50 -- 51-55

There are 1 comment(s) below your current score threshold.

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?