Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Not really, the skill required to do a photoshoot is just copy paste and a bit of the healing brush tool. This is considerably easier than a deep fake. I also disagree with the idea that quality is superior. Resolution is lower, and the seams are often visible. Though ultimately this is subjective: is a high resolution still "better" than a low-resolution video?

The core complaint about deep fakes is, word for word, the exact same complaint about Photoshop: someone might use a computer to produce a image with someone's face pasted onto another person's body (presumably naked and doing a sexual act). People could - and no doubt some did - Photoshop classmate's faces onto nude women's bodies.



> Not really, the skill required to do a photoshoot is just copy paste and a bit of the healing brush tool

That works if you have very similar images: same pose, lighting angle, intensity, hue, etc. In most cases, people quickly recognize it as fake because it’s harder than it might seem to get those details right, which is where the skill requirement comes in (not to mention things like a huge image collection to search for compatible images). Things like tattoos, clothing, jewelry, birthmarks, etc. add to the challenge since it looks highly fake to just use the healing brush.

In contrast, the apps which are being built now allow the attacker to upload the images they have and generate more realistic images very quickly. Again, the concern here is availability and scale – while people certainly have misused Photoshop (and analog darkroom techniques before that) in the past, the reason we’re hearing about it more is that it’s much easier than it used to be. There are far more teenagers who’ll be terrible to a peer in the moment but aren’t going to spend days getting new software and learning how to use it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: