The Fakery Around Us

One of the latest tempests-in-a-Washington-teapot is about whether President Trump retweeted a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi slurring her words. Complicating the matter is that there are several Pelosi videos circulating the web, some "more fake" than others. Also, there is little consensus about where the line is crossed, for example, whether it includes editing out context or slowing the speed.

IMHO, this Trump-Pelosi contretemps is tiresome and will blow over soon.

The far greater issue is the advancement of "deep-fake" video technology.

Deepfakes first entered the public eye late 2017, when an anonymous Redditor under the name “deepfakes” began uploading videos of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson stitched onto the bodies of pornographic actors...

Celebrities are the easiest targets, with ample public imagery that can be used to train deepfake algorithms; it’s relatively easy to make a high-fidelity video of Donald Trump, for example, who appears on TV day and night and at all angles....

The concern is that a cleverly crafted deepfake of a public figure, perhaps imitating a grainy cell phone video so that it’s imperfections are overlooked, and timed for the right moment, could shape a lot of opinions.

You and I, dear reader, may take comfort in that we are not public figures; there are relatively few pictures and videos of us that can be used for nefarious purposes. But are we deluding ourselves?

Samsung's "deep fake" algorithms can create a video talking head from a single photograph. Below is a demonstration using a well-known portrait.

(Gif from sciencealert.com )

One silver lining is that the subjects of embarrassing revelations can plausibly claim that the "evidence" is made up. If some of it is untrustworthy--and we don't know which part--then all of it is. And maybe, just maybe, this will lead the viewing public to do more thinking for themselves.