WEBVTT - Truth in the Time of Deepfakes 0:00:15.396 --> 0:00:22.916 Pushkin from Pushkin Industries. This is Deep Background, the show 0:00:22.956 --> 0:00:25.956 where we explore the stories behind the stories in the news. 0:00:26.356 --> 0:00:30.996 I'm Noah Feldman. We used to say seeing is believing, 0:00:31.276 --> 0:00:35.276 but that was before the invention of deep fakes. Increasingly 0:00:35.596 --> 0:00:40.556 affordable technology can actually create manufactured audio and video that 0:00:40.716 --> 0:00:43.516 no human eye or ear will be able to distinguish 0:00:43.676 --> 0:00:46.636 from the real thing. Does that mean we can't trust 0:00:46.676 --> 0:00:49.516 our eyes anymore, that we'll have to develop a pervasive 0:00:49.556 --> 0:00:53.676 sense of insecurity about what's actually true? Or could it 0:00:53.756 --> 0:00:56.276 open the door to something a little healthier, like a 0:00:56.316 --> 0:00:59.236 modest skepticism or a world where we will be more 0:00:59.316 --> 0:01:03.516 cautious about what we believe. To discuss these hard questions, 0:01:03.796 --> 0:01:06.676 I'm joined by Danielle Citron, a professor at the Boston 0:01:06.756 --> 0:01:10.076 University's School of Law. Danielle is the vice president of 0:01:10.116 --> 0:01:13.716 the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which is a nonprofit devoted 0:01:13.756 --> 0:01:16.196 to the protection of civil rights and liberties in the 0:01:16.236 --> 0:01:20.516 digital age. She works very closely with lawmakers, law enforcers, 0:01:20.556 --> 0:01:24.556 and big social media platforms. She's written extensively about deep fakes, 0:01:24.876 --> 0:01:28.276 and in June twenty nineteen, she testified before the House 0:01:28.316 --> 0:01:31.996 Intelligence Committee on the subject. Danielle, I'm just so thrilled 0:01:32.196 --> 0:01:36.116 that you're here to talk to us about deep fakes. 0:01:36.356 --> 0:01:40.716 So let's just start with some definitions for those who 0:01:40.756 --> 0:01:43.156 are just encountering deep fakes for the first time over 0:01:43.156 --> 0:01:45.836 the last few months. What counts as a deep fake 0:01:46.116 --> 0:01:51.596 in your definition, deep fakes is involves machine learning technology 0:01:52.316 --> 0:01:55.756 that manipulates or fabricates out of sort of digital whole 0:01:55.756 --> 0:01:59.436 cloth video and audio recordings that show people doing and 0:01:59.476 --> 0:02:02.956 saying things that they never dinner said. So they seem 0:02:02.956 --> 0:02:07.196 really authentic and realistic, but they're totally false. And they 0:02:07.236 --> 0:02:10.236 look really good, don't they. You know, right now, the 0:02:10.316 --> 0:02:14.476 technology is still pretty much developing, so they look good. 0:02:15.116 --> 0:02:18.796 They're not perfect. If you look closely enough, you can 0:02:18.876 --> 0:02:21.156 sometimes see some of the flaws, even just to the 0:02:21.356 --> 0:02:25.596 human eye, and technologists can easily identify, for the most 0:02:25.636 --> 0:02:28.636 part that there are some flaws that show it's not real. 0:02:29.276 --> 0:02:31.836 It's that what's going to happen in the next six 0:02:32.076 --> 0:02:36.076 to nine months is that the technology is it's advancing 0:02:36.116 --> 0:02:39.956 so rapidly, so soon enough technologists think it's going to 0:02:40.036 --> 0:02:43.636 be really hard, if not impossible, to detect or discern 0:02:43.676 --> 0:02:47.396 the difference between what's fake and what's real, And that's 0:02:47.436 --> 0:02:51.956 when we're going to run into serious trouble when that happened. Yeah, 0:02:51.956 --> 0:02:56.276 I mean when that happens, that means that any public figure, 0:02:56.396 --> 0:02:59.156 or not just a public figure, any person could be 0:02:59.196 --> 0:03:04.116 depicted in a relatively convincing looking video clip as saying 0:03:04.156 --> 0:03:08.396 we're doing something that they never said or did. So 0:03:08.436 --> 0:03:10.836 we have to, one way or another start preparing ourselves 0:03:10.876 --> 0:03:14.316 for that for that world. I guess is there any credible, 0:03:14.356 --> 0:03:17.916 realistic way just to ban this technology? I mean, could 0:03:17.916 --> 0:03:20.076 this just be a piece of technology that was flat 0:03:20.076 --> 0:03:22.636 out prohibited. I mean, I'm not allowed to have a 0:03:22.636 --> 0:03:25.316 surfaced air missile in my backyard, so why do I 0:03:25.316 --> 0:03:27.756 have to be able to have this on my computer? Right? No, 0:03:27.916 --> 0:03:30.156 it's a it's a great question about you know, the 0:03:30.156 --> 0:03:35.636 difference between single use technologies whose only function is essentially 0:03:35.676 --> 0:03:38.556 illegality in your hands, right if you had a serviced airbistle. 0:03:39.276 --> 0:03:42.236 Deep fakes are different because you know, we can make 0:03:42.276 --> 0:03:44.916 deep fakes for good, we can make deep fakes to 0:03:44.956 --> 0:03:47.836 create art. You know, there's a deep fake of President 0:03:47.876 --> 0:03:52.076 Obama teaching us about the phenomenon of deep fakes. We're 0:03:52.196 --> 0:03:54.476 entering an era in which our enemies can make it 0:03:54.516 --> 0:03:57.476 look like anyone is saying anything at any point in time, 0:03:58.036 --> 0:04:00.556 even if they would never say those things. And so 0:04:00.636 --> 0:04:03.516 you can imagine so many interesting ways that deep fakes 0:04:03.556 --> 0:04:07.556 can help teach history. There's a man who has als 0:04:07.756 --> 0:04:10.756 and he sort of beerheaded the use of the technology 0:04:10.836 --> 0:04:15.596 to create audio that matches his thoughts so that others 0:04:15.636 --> 0:04:18.476 can hear him speak because he's unable to speak now. 0:04:19.116 --> 0:04:23.036 And there's a story about a man who's a quadriplegic 0:04:23.116 --> 0:04:25.956 who can't make love to his wife, and they used 0:04:26.276 --> 0:04:29.756 photographs of him to create a deep fake sex video 0:04:29.836 --> 0:04:32.556 of heat consentually and his wife so they can see 0:04:32.596 --> 0:04:35.716 themselves making love. So there are all sorts of ways 0:04:35.756 --> 0:04:38.996 that deep fakes can be pro social. And so you know, 0:04:38.996 --> 0:04:41.876 the question is should we ban the technology? And I 0:04:41.876 --> 0:04:44.276 would say we're going to have some problems with banning 0:04:44.276 --> 0:04:47.036 it for all sorts of practical reasons, like it's cats 0:04:47.036 --> 0:04:48.916 out of the bag. I don't think we can ban it, 0:04:48.996 --> 0:04:51.836 and I don't think we should ban it. It sounds 0:04:51.876 --> 0:04:55.036 like in the world that you're describing, we get very 0:04:55.156 --> 0:04:58.196 quickly to a category that you've written a lot about 0:04:58.276 --> 0:05:01.356 and that's a very complicated and contentious topic. And that's 0:05:01.396 --> 0:05:04.636 the topic of consent. You know, in the case of 0:05:04.676 --> 0:05:07.756 the person suffering from als that you mentioned, it's not 0:05:07.796 --> 0:05:09.916 just that they could create a video, but I suppose 0:05:10.036 --> 0:05:13.156 they could create an avatar, and then the man's wife 0:05:13.156 --> 0:05:16.596 could consentually have virtual sex with him, and they would 0:05:16.636 --> 0:05:18.436 be they would be happy about that, and we would 0:05:18.476 --> 0:05:21.836 perceive that as a pro social result. The problem arises 0:05:21.836 --> 0:05:25.036 when it's an image of a person taken without his 0:05:25.116 --> 0:05:28.556 or her consent. So are we at least in this realm, 0:05:28.596 --> 0:05:30.956 the realm of let's call it sex and deep fakes 0:05:30.996 --> 0:05:33.236 before we get to politics and deep fakes and other 0:05:33.316 --> 0:05:36.876 kinds of deep fakes. Is this a realm where we 0:05:36.916 --> 0:05:41.476 need to fall back on the familiar, albeit imperfect rules 0:05:41.516 --> 0:05:44.276 that we're used to using to regulate sexual conduct. I mean, 0:05:44.316 --> 0:05:46.796 sexual conduct itself is something that we see as pro social, 0:05:47.116 --> 0:05:50.036 except if it's not consensual, then it's very much antisocial 0:05:50.116 --> 0:05:53.316 and it's rape and it's a crime. It's true that 0:05:53.836 --> 0:05:58.796 with deep fakes, as with real life physical interactions, so 0:05:58.916 --> 0:06:01.436 often where the rubber hits the road, and where it's 0:06:01.516 --> 0:06:06.156 legally enormatively significant is where the person does not consent. 0:06:06.876 --> 0:06:09.436 It's much in the way that we think of sexual 0:06:09.716 --> 0:06:12.996 interactions that are physical between two individuals or three or 0:06:13.036 --> 0:06:16.956 whoever many when we're talking about video and audio, much 0:06:16.956 --> 0:06:21.556 as the way there's a big difference between porn and obscenity, right, 0:06:21.676 --> 0:06:24.356 or porn and non porn. It all has to do 0:06:24.396 --> 0:06:28.236 with consent. So I'm a pornography go for it if 0:06:28.276 --> 0:06:30.596 that's what you want to do. But if you are 0:06:30.676 --> 0:06:34.876 made into a sex object without your consent, then by 0:06:34.916 --> 0:06:37.796 my lights, it's something that we can regulate and should regulate. 0:06:38.596 --> 0:06:42.636 So obviously this is an important and significant developing area 0:06:42.636 --> 0:06:44.636 of law, and I want to ask you what I 0:06:44.636 --> 0:06:48.036 think is the natural question about that, which is, how 0:06:48.076 --> 0:06:52.596 do you draw the line between forms of fiction that 0:06:52.636 --> 0:06:57.036 have always implicated taking a person's image or their identity, 0:06:57.716 --> 0:07:01.316 and which historically we've treated as protected by freedom of 0:07:01.356 --> 0:07:05.356 expression from what you're setting out to prohibit. So Curtis 0:07:05.396 --> 0:07:09.116 Sittenfeld writes a novel, pretty good novel about Laura buk 0:07:09.476 --> 0:07:12.476 the former First Lady, and you know, she's more or 0:07:12.516 --> 0:07:16.236 less appropriated her whole character for the purposes of the novel. 0:07:16.236 --> 0:07:18.396 And it's not a sound a pornographic novel by stention 0:07:18.436 --> 0:07:21.916 the imagination. But such a novel could include sex or 0:07:21.956 --> 0:07:25.396 other forms of intimacy and depicted literarily, and we think 0:07:25.436 --> 0:07:30.476 of that as protected speech in some way. How would 0:07:30.516 --> 0:07:32.476 how do you think about drawing that kind of line? 0:07:33.156 --> 0:07:35.996 So a few things. The first is that audio and 0:07:36.156 --> 0:07:40.996 video are different from text in important ways. No audio 0:07:40.996 --> 0:07:45.276 and video have this visceral hold on us. We assume 0:07:45.356 --> 0:07:47.636 that they're true because we trust what our eyes and 0:07:47.676 --> 0:07:50.956 ears are telling us, Whereas how human beings respond to 0:07:50.996 --> 0:07:54.956 text is it's mediated in many respects through our thoughts, 0:07:55.516 --> 0:07:59.276 and so unlike audio and video, which react, we react 0:07:59.316 --> 0:08:03.036 to it in a way that it bypasses thinking. We 0:08:03.156 --> 0:08:06.396 just immediately assume it is true. It has a different 0:08:06.436 --> 0:08:08.676 kind of impact than text does. So I think that's 0:08:08.676 --> 0:08:13.076 the first difference between the novel, which imagines Laura Bush 0:08:13.156 --> 0:08:17.596 doing and saying things, versus video that represents to the 0:08:17.636 --> 0:08:21.796 world that it actually happened. Right. One is clearly fiction. 0:08:21.876 --> 0:08:25.276 It has to be mediated by our thoughts. We recognize 0:08:25.356 --> 0:08:29.476 it's being conveyed as fiction. And by contrast, audio and 0:08:29.556 --> 0:08:31.956 video in the deep fake context. So I'm not talking 0:08:31.996 --> 0:08:35.516 about audio and video that is clearly parody, and that 0:08:35.556 --> 0:08:38.476 we are using in ways that may clear and is. 0:08:38.516 --> 0:08:40.836 Let's pretend there's a label on it that says this 0:08:40.916 --> 0:08:44.436 is a parody. We're talking about audio and video that's 0:08:44.476 --> 0:08:48.396 designed to hide itself as false. It's being passed off 0:08:48.436 --> 0:08:52.956 as real, and the way we human beings perceive audio 0:08:52.956 --> 0:08:56.796 and video is as if it is a true representation 0:08:57.396 --> 0:08:59.396 of things that have happened in the world, as if 0:08:59.436 --> 0:09:02.796 it's real evidence. So that is I think one really 0:09:02.836 --> 0:09:08.516 important piece of why digital impersonations using audio and video 0:09:09.196 --> 0:09:11.996 that not only a powerful impact and therefore can have 0:09:12.156 --> 0:09:16.596 significant harms, it's how the creators are passing them off 0:09:17.316 --> 0:09:21.396 as real rather than as fiction. We see this play 0:09:21.396 --> 0:09:24.356 out with defamation. We can be as opinionated as we 0:09:24.396 --> 0:09:27.396 want to be and everyone knows it's what we think. 0:09:27.996 --> 0:09:31.236 But when it comes to factual falsehoods that we're saying 0:09:31.236 --> 0:09:34.676 are true, we can punish those. So that's another piece 0:09:34.716 --> 0:09:37.116 of it why there's a big difference between the deep 0:09:37.196 --> 0:09:40.676 fake that's passing itself off as real. Soon we won't 0:09:40.676 --> 0:09:42.716 even be able to tell the difference between fake and 0:09:42.756 --> 0:09:45.676 real unless we do some real serious journalists digging and 0:09:45.916 --> 0:09:50.596 where someone was at a particular time versus the novel, Daniel, 0:09:50.836 --> 0:09:53.436 there's several really fascinating things and what you just said, 0:09:53.436 --> 0:09:54.876 and I want to break it up into pieces if 0:09:54.916 --> 0:09:57.676 we could, so I want to start with this question 0:09:57.716 --> 0:10:01.316 of the disclaimer or how the information is presented on 0:10:01.396 --> 0:10:03.916 the way you were describing now, it sounds like, though, 0:10:03.996 --> 0:10:06.716 if someone produces a video where they take my image 0:10:06.716 --> 0:10:08.276 and then they do something with me that I don't 0:10:08.276 --> 0:10:10.116 want to have done, you know, they put me into 0:10:10.116 --> 0:10:13.396 a sex video or something like that, if they put 0:10:13.436 --> 0:10:17.276 a little note on it that says disclaimer, this is 0:10:17.316 --> 0:10:21.356 a deep fake, it's not Feldman, then in principle it 0:10:21.436 --> 0:10:25.036 sounds like maybe wouldn't be covered by the prohibitions that 0:10:25.076 --> 0:10:27.996 you're talking about. And my instinct is that that wouldn't 0:10:27.996 --> 0:10:31.276 be very satisfactory. If we're concern is about the appropriation 0:10:31.316 --> 0:10:35.196 of my identity, then a disclaimer, even if it's a 0:10:35.236 --> 0:10:37.636 chiron running the whole time that the video is playing, 0:10:38.196 --> 0:10:39.716 I don't think it's going to make me feel that 0:10:39.836 --> 0:10:43.156 much better about the appropriation of my image, is it. So? Yeah, 0:10:43.196 --> 0:10:45.836 let me back up for a second. I was using 0:10:46.316 --> 0:10:49.636 defamation and the kinds of defamation harms and harm to 0:10:49.756 --> 0:10:54.516 reputation that may be alleviated with labeling. And so the 0:10:54.596 --> 0:10:57.636 question is a good one, pressing me would disclosure in 0:10:57.676 --> 0:11:01.716 and of itself be a remedy here, And I always 0:11:01.716 --> 0:11:03.756 think of it as it's kind of like a half measure, 0:11:04.196 --> 0:11:08.196 and it doesn't remedy the invasion to let's say, for example, 0:11:08.276 --> 0:11:11.276 sexual privacy. So when you take someone that you're the 0:11:11.316 --> 0:11:14.036 example that you gave Noahs one that I would immediately 0:11:14.076 --> 0:11:16.956 use as well, which is you take someone's sexual identity 0:11:17.716 --> 0:11:20.596 and you insert their face into pornography. And what you've 0:11:20.636 --> 0:11:26.036 done is you've appropriated variability to express themselves sexually in 0:11:26.116 --> 0:11:28.596 ways that they do not want to be so seen 0:11:28.716 --> 0:11:32.476 that way, right, or depicted, And that in itself is 0:11:32.476 --> 0:11:35.516 a harm. It's a harm that resonates both with autonomy 0:11:35.556 --> 0:11:40.356 and with the consequential emotional harms. And so you're right 0:11:40.716 --> 0:11:43.436 that even with the label there, in the case of 0:11:43.436 --> 0:11:46.716 an invasion of sexual privacy, that there's harm both to 0:11:46.836 --> 0:11:51.476 reputation that may be somewhat solved by a label like hey, 0:11:51.516 --> 0:11:54.036 this isn't real, friends, I'm not passing this off as 0:11:54.036 --> 0:11:58.596 a fact. That's the harm to reputation and defamation. But 0:11:58.676 --> 0:12:01.636 there are other harms, and that includes invasions to sexual 0:12:01.676 --> 0:12:07.196 privacy that labels cannot cure. And as well, if it's 0:12:07.196 --> 0:12:09.756 in a Google search of your name, label, ain't you 0:12:09.756 --> 0:12:12.436 doing me any good? Probably because people won't see it 0:12:12.956 --> 0:12:16.036 and there isn't a meaningful way made of respond we 0:12:16.196 --> 0:12:18.516 response of this related video and audio that people are 0:12:18.556 --> 0:12:21.236 going to believe it's you. That's the second thing that 0:12:21.236 --> 0:12:23.596 I really wanted to ask you about in your fascinating 0:12:23.716 --> 0:12:25.956 comment before, and that is this idea that audio and 0:12:26.116 --> 0:12:30.556 video are somehow different because we really believe something about them. 0:12:30.556 --> 0:12:33.116 And here too, I think there are maybe two different parts. 0:12:33.676 --> 0:12:38.196 One is the idea that maybe there's something almost neurochemical 0:12:38.236 --> 0:12:42.996 about viewing audio and video that's different from other forms 0:12:43.236 --> 0:12:46.356 of representation. And I wonder if you really believe that. 0:12:46.396 --> 0:12:47.956 I'm not sure I believe that. I mean, if I 0:12:47.996 --> 0:12:50.956 watch you a Jason Bourne movie, I know it's not 0:12:51.036 --> 0:12:53.436 real even though it's got audio and video in it, 0:12:53.476 --> 0:12:57.116 because of the context in which I'm experiencing it. So 0:12:57.356 --> 0:13:00.396 we're perfectly capable of being skeptical about truth in the 0:13:00.436 --> 0:13:02.756 cases of audio and video. And I'm not completely convinced 0:13:02.756 --> 0:13:05.556 that if you put us under a functional MRI scan 0:13:06.076 --> 0:13:08.156 that our brains would look so radically different in the 0:13:08.196 --> 0:13:11.236 two contexts. And then the second possibility is that you 0:13:11.276 --> 0:13:13.556 were saying that we have a kind of cultural expectation 0:13:14.316 --> 0:13:16.516 that if it's on audio or if it's on a 0:13:16.596 --> 0:13:19.956 video and it looks like me, that it's me doing it. 0:13:20.076 --> 0:13:22.356 And there I want to raise the topic for us 0:13:22.396 --> 0:13:24.756 to talk about of how that's going to change. It 0:13:24.796 --> 0:13:28.436 seems almost inevitable that that expectation that we still have 0:13:29.196 --> 0:13:33.996 as of two thousand and nineteen may be gone even 0:13:34.076 --> 0:13:37.116 by two thousand and twenty. So those are two questions 0:13:37.116 --> 0:13:38.716 in one. But maybe start with the first one, is 0:13:38.716 --> 0:13:40.596 there something unique about audio and video? And then we'll 0:13:40.636 --> 0:13:43.036 go on to whether our expectations are going to change? 0:13:43.796 --> 0:13:46.156 So what is unique, and this is really important I 0:13:46.156 --> 0:13:50.236 want to underscore, is the notion of context and content 0:13:51.156 --> 0:13:54.316 when a deep seek is most effective, meaning when it 0:13:54.356 --> 0:13:57.996 convinces you that somebody's done something and said something they've 0:13:58.036 --> 0:14:02.676 never done. It's all about context and content. The Jason 0:14:02.716 --> 0:14:06.316 Bourne movie you mentioned in that context and content, I 0:14:06.356 --> 0:14:09.516 know it's a movie I go in understand that it's 0:14:09.556 --> 0:14:13.116 all this alternative universe that I'm watching on screen, But 0:14:13.236 --> 0:14:16.916 in a context and context in which the video is 0:14:16.956 --> 0:14:21.156 being passed off as and looks damn real, then people 0:14:21.396 --> 0:14:23.756 are going to take it as real. So let me 0:14:23.796 --> 0:14:26.876 just give example. Rana Ayub is a journalist in India 0:14:27.396 --> 0:14:31.236 who is an investigative reporter and she her work has 0:14:31.276 --> 0:14:34.756 attracted lots of vitriol because she challenges people in power. 0:14:35.316 --> 0:14:37.636 And there was a deep fake sex video made of her. 0:14:37.956 --> 0:14:41.196 She looked at it and she knew intellectually it wasn't her, 0:14:41.636 --> 0:14:44.716 But immediately after seeing it, she went and vomited and 0:14:44.836 --> 0:14:48.636 she couldn't sleep or eat for like weeks because seeing 0:14:48.676 --> 0:14:52.476 herself demeaned and engaging in a sex action never engaged in, 0:14:52.596 --> 0:14:56.596 it hit her, she explains in the gut she could 0:14:56.636 --> 0:14:59.556 not shake the image of it in her head. And 0:14:59.596 --> 0:15:01.756 when thousands and thousands of people saw it, because it 0:15:01.796 --> 0:15:04.636 was shared, like half of the phones in India, people 0:15:04.676 --> 0:15:08.196 apparently had it, people believed it was her and they 0:15:08.236 --> 0:15:11.596 confronted her off flne There was the suggestion, you know, 0:15:11.636 --> 0:15:14.876 people were urging others to confront her and have sex 0:15:14.876 --> 0:15:19.756 with her, to rape her. So in that context, the 0:15:19.876 --> 0:15:24.636 video was taken as true and it moved people. It 0:15:24.756 --> 0:15:27.276 moved people to write to her inbox was so full 0:15:27.676 --> 0:15:31.236 with sex solicitations from men she didn't know. She was overwhelmed. 0:15:32.156 --> 0:15:34.916 I realize, you know, we're talking about how do we 0:15:34.956 --> 0:15:39.876 distinguish between circumstances, And you ask rightfully, so you know, 0:15:40.076 --> 0:15:43.796 isn't it true now that we have our radar is 0:15:43.876 --> 0:15:46.556 up and we know when to distinguish what's false and 0:15:46.596 --> 0:15:49.076 what's real. Well, in the case of a movie, we do, 0:15:49.276 --> 0:15:51.316 our radar is up and we know we have all 0:15:51.476 --> 0:15:54.556 the and diisha that it's fake. But you know, with 0:15:55.156 --> 0:15:59.196 deep fakes that are really convincing, we won't have our 0:15:59.276 --> 0:16:02.676 radar up, And especially in certain contexts and certain content, 0:16:03.276 --> 0:16:05.316 the whole point of it is to trick us into 0:16:05.356 --> 0:16:09.516 believing it's true. It's an incredibly horrifying story about about 0:16:09.556 --> 0:16:13.316 Ranna Ayube. I want to ask though, about how we 0:16:13.396 --> 0:16:16.956 gradually change our expectations. So, you know, it's a really 0:16:16.996 --> 0:16:21.116 interesting subject in the history of photography, how people certainly 0:16:21.156 --> 0:16:24.716 believe that photographs were always real in the not only 0:16:24.716 --> 0:16:26.796 in the late nineteenth century but well into the twentieth century. 0:16:26.836 --> 0:16:28.996 And two of the great examples that the darians and 0:16:29.036 --> 0:16:33.756 photography you like to use are the photographs of spirits, 0:16:33.796 --> 0:16:39.516 of ectoplasmic angels and fairies and sprites, which became super 0:16:39.596 --> 0:16:43.076 popular in the end of the nineteenth century. Arthur Conan Doyle, 0:16:43.076 --> 0:16:45.276 who at the Sherlock Holm Stories, was interested in them, 0:16:45.356 --> 0:16:48.476 and J. M. Barrie, who wrote Peter Pan was interested 0:16:48.476 --> 0:16:51.196 in them. And lots of people were fascinated by these 0:16:51.396 --> 0:16:54.716 by these photographic images which appeared to give actual form 0:16:55.516 --> 0:16:57.996 to these supernatural spirits. And of course now we look 0:16:57.996 --> 0:17:00.556 at it and we say, well, that's obviously a fake photograph. 0:17:01.196 --> 0:17:05.076 The other example that they like to give is stalinist Russia, 0:17:05.156 --> 0:17:07.996 and there's a famous example of a photograph of a 0:17:08.036 --> 0:17:11.476 whole group of senior Communist Party figures and then one 0:17:11.556 --> 0:17:15.676 by one by one, as each was purged. He they 0:17:15.716 --> 0:17:17.996 were all men. He was airbrushed, or like I say, 0:17:18.036 --> 0:17:21.276 maybe didn't have airbrushed, but he was removed by earlier 0:17:21.276 --> 0:17:24.236 technological means from the photograph, until in the end you 0:17:24.396 --> 0:17:27.356 basically just had Stalin on his own. And at every moment, 0:17:28.036 --> 0:17:31.036 you know, the Communist Party kept putting out these photographs 0:17:31.036 --> 0:17:33.596 out there, and the public sort of in some way 0:17:33.676 --> 0:17:36.676 believe them, even if some people might have remembered that 0:17:36.716 --> 0:17:38.556 this photograph looked a little different than it had looked 0:17:38.796 --> 0:17:40.836 the last time. So those are both examples from the 0:17:40.836 --> 0:17:44.516 history of photography about how the technology could elicit the 0:17:44.596 --> 0:17:48.676 expectation of reality for some period of time, but then 0:17:48.716 --> 0:17:52.556 as people get familiar with the technology, our expectation changes. 0:17:53.116 --> 0:17:55.836 And so I'm wondering if the tragic story that you 0:17:55.916 --> 0:17:59.436 describe for runa Ayu isn't something that will last for 0:17:59.476 --> 0:18:01.516 as long as it takes for people around the world 0:18:01.956 --> 0:18:04.556 to realize what deep fakes are. And let's say it 0:18:04.596 --> 0:18:05.996 takes six months or a year or a couple of 0:18:06.036 --> 0:18:08.636 years for people to figure that out. But maybe we're 0:18:08.676 --> 0:18:11.996 on the US both a change where no one's really 0:18:11.996 --> 0:18:13.996 going to believe what they see or hear on audio 0:18:14.076 --> 0:18:16.516 or video anymore. And I think that leads us to 0:18:16.596 --> 0:18:19.116 two really troubling places, like we're at a fork in 0:18:19.196 --> 0:18:22.516 the road. And the first is if we just decide 0:18:22.556 --> 0:18:25.836 that we can't believe anything, then we're going to just 0:18:25.956 --> 0:18:28.836 believe what we want to believe, just forget the truth, 0:18:29.276 --> 0:18:33.356 you know, our confirmation biases. We believe information that accords 0:18:33.396 --> 0:18:36.796 with our world views. And so one possibility in a 0:18:36.836 --> 0:18:41.116 world in which we are so skeptical of audio and 0:18:41.236 --> 0:18:44.716 video evidence that we simply say for our hands up 0:18:44.956 --> 0:18:47.516 and say, uh, I'm just gonna believe what I want 0:18:47.516 --> 0:18:49.996 to believe. Truth be damned, right, that's one possibility, and 0:18:50.036 --> 0:18:52.836 that's that's one nightmare for the pursuit of truth. And 0:18:52.876 --> 0:18:54.836 sometimes it seems like we're already in that world. If 0:18:54.836 --> 0:18:57.276 you watch Fox and CNN at the same time we're 0:18:57.316 --> 0:19:00.116 Fox and MSNBC and you hear their alternative versions of reality, 0:19:00.436 --> 0:19:03.276 sometimes seems like everyone's already gone down that rabbit hole. Right. 0:19:03.316 --> 0:19:06.996 So that's that's one rabbit hole. That's one of my nightmares. 0:19:07.076 --> 0:19:09.796 You know. It's like Alice in the look glass like 0:19:09.916 --> 0:19:12.516 that to me is a one really bad path that 0:19:12.596 --> 0:19:16.796 you're right, we are already on. And then the second 0:19:17.036 --> 0:19:20.556 challenge for truth, and you alluded to this earlier, is 0:19:20.596 --> 0:19:24.396 that we might also be in a space where and 0:19:24.676 --> 0:19:27.556 this could be liminal. Doesn't mean it's forever, but where. 0:19:27.716 --> 0:19:30.996 And we've seen it already with politicians looking at real 0:19:31.316 --> 0:19:34.996 evidence of wrongdoing and saying, ah, you can't believe your 0:19:35.036 --> 0:19:37.756 eyes and ears, it's a fake. Think about what President 0:19:37.996 --> 0:19:40.956 Trump tried to do with the Access Hollywood tape, he 0:19:41.036 --> 0:19:42.796 sort of wises up to the idea of a deep 0:19:42.796 --> 0:19:46.756 fake after he admits to having of course been in 0:19:46.756 --> 0:19:49.836 the conversation with Billy Bush more recently. He said that 0:19:49.956 --> 0:19:52.716 wasn't me. I'm not sure that was me. He tried 0:19:52.756 --> 0:19:54.836 it out, you know. And it's Bobby Chesney and I, 0:19:55.396 --> 0:19:58.996 professor at UT Austin and my co author. We call 0:19:59.076 --> 0:20:03.276 that the liar's dividend, the possibility that liars were leverage 0:20:03.636 --> 0:20:06.956 the phenomenon of deep fakes to run away from and 0:20:07.196 --> 0:20:10.956 to escape accountability for the wrongdoing. Yeah, that liar's dividend 0:20:11.076 --> 0:20:15.796 seems almost inevitable unless there's some magic, you know, super 0:20:15.836 --> 0:20:19.276 technology that will enable us to distinguish and figure out 0:20:19.316 --> 0:20:23.476 through careful forensic analysis whether a particular audio or video 0:20:23.476 --> 0:20:27.236 clip is or is not a deep fake. So let 0:20:27.276 --> 0:20:29.876 me take a concrete, relatively recent example where I think 0:20:29.916 --> 0:20:32.476 there was and this is the not the deep fake, 0:20:32.556 --> 0:20:35.516 but the so called cheap fake of the Nancy Pelosi 0:20:35.596 --> 0:20:38.956 video which made her slow down her speech and distorted 0:20:38.956 --> 0:20:41.676 her speech to make her sound like she was either 0:20:41.756 --> 0:20:45.436 disoriented or maybe drunk. We want to give this president 0:20:45.996 --> 0:20:53.396 the opportunity do something historic for our country. In that case, 0:20:53.756 --> 0:20:57.236 what was the technology that enabled observers to prove that 0:20:57.276 --> 0:20:59.396 this was not actually Nancy Pelosi's voice. I mean, I 0:20:59.436 --> 0:21:02.036 guess it was partly finding the original video and audio 0:21:02.076 --> 0:21:04.796 where she sounded normal. We want to give this president 0:21:05.156 --> 0:21:11.116 the opportunity do something historic for our country. Yes, the 0:21:11.676 --> 0:21:14.516 key to uncovering that it was like a cheap or 0:21:14.516 --> 0:21:18.156 shallow fake was that there was existing audio of what 0:21:18.276 --> 0:21:21.796 really happened. And so once you can check the real 0:21:21.836 --> 0:21:27.396 audio and visuals next to the fabrication, it was a manipulation, 0:21:27.476 --> 0:21:31.036 really wasn't a fabrication, then you could say they played 0:21:31.036 --> 0:21:34.556 with that, they slowed down the speech. But what's challenging is, 0:21:34.596 --> 0:21:37.956 and someone worries that Bobby and I have about privacy, 0:21:38.356 --> 0:21:41.276 is that when we don't have self surveillance all the time. 0:21:41.316 --> 0:21:45.116 You know, Nancy Pelosi when she's giving public remarks, somebody's 0:21:45.156 --> 0:21:49.676 taping it. But the everyday person doesn't have perfect surveillance 0:21:49.796 --> 0:21:52.716 one hopes, right, and so you don't have carrying your 0:21:52.716 --> 0:21:55.956 phone around, you may actually de facto have perfect surveillance 0:21:55.996 --> 0:21:57.356 of yourself, whether you know it or not, or if 0:21:57.356 --> 0:22:00.236 you're speaking while Alexa is on. I mean, we usually 0:22:00.236 --> 0:22:02.876 think that's a problem that you're constantly being surveilled wherever 0:22:02.916 --> 0:22:04.756 you go, but in your account, it might actually be 0:22:04.756 --> 0:22:06.476 a good thing. I mean, it very easy to build 0:22:06.476 --> 0:22:08.476 in a future to your phone. I mean it's already 0:22:08.476 --> 0:22:11.116 in there that listens to everything you say, and then 0:22:11.116 --> 0:22:12.916 you could always pull it out and say, well, as 0:22:12.956 --> 0:22:15.076 a matter of fact, I didn't say that, and we might. 0:22:15.116 --> 0:22:17.596 I mean, so what Bobby and I imagine in our 0:22:17.676 --> 0:22:21.236 work together is the possibility that we take that. You know, 0:22:21.396 --> 0:22:25.516 our phones right now are they're basically GPS trackers, and 0:22:25.636 --> 0:22:27.756 they track everything we do and say with those phones 0:22:27.996 --> 0:22:30.756 through text and through our sending photos. But they're not 0:22:30.956 --> 0:22:33.476 on in the sense of they're not my microphone recording 0:22:33.516 --> 0:22:37.116 devices unless somebody installed cyberstocking at an app on our phone. 0:22:37.236 --> 0:22:39.556 Right so we're not although that's not true if you 0:22:39.596 --> 0:22:41.956 have if you have Hey Siri on there, Oh please, 0:22:42.036 --> 0:22:45.196 didn't you turn that off on your phone? Sorry? Well, 0:22:45.196 --> 0:22:47.876 I was going to until our conversation because I guess 0:22:47.956 --> 0:22:49.556