Words I Hate
- Thread starter Liquid
- 1,242 comments
- 83,478 views
- 19,627
- Alabamamania
It's not a word, but a pronunciation I've heard it a lot recently. I don't know if it's a general US thing, but the news people all say it the same way.
"Toward", pronounced as "tward".
I say it "tore'd" (a homonym of toured), but I've heard some say "tword" and "tward" for ages.
Last edited:
- 16,109
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
- 29,919
- Thailand
- 4,578
- SoCal
- GTP_MooCow
Deep Fake
Things are either real (factual) or fake....
Anyone saying 'deep fake' is just an idiot wanting to sound smart... trying to over-compensate their own stupidity...
Things are either real (factual) or fake....
Anyone saying 'deep fake' is just an idiot wanting to sound smart... trying to over-compensate their own stupidity...
Last edited:
- 12,962
- United Kingdom
You haven't worked out what a Deepfake is then. It has nothing to do with fake news like you're implying, and is more like an indistinguishable face-swapper.
It's a video which has had someone's face replaced by someone else's. It can be used humorously, but has had a lot of issues with how it can be abused. Deepfake someone into some incriminating footage and you suddenly have an easy court case or blackmail on your hands. It's also been used to superimpose celebrity faces on Porn films, which is a whole new level of wrong.
For something simple like "KSI as Ainsley Harriott", it is being used in the non-harmful way, but it's very easy to see how quickly this can be used.
- 4,578
- SoCal
- GTP_MooCow
You haven't worked out what a Deepfake is then. It has nothing to do with fake news like you're implying, and is more like an indistinguishable face-swapper.
It's a video which has had someone's face replaced by someone else's. It can be used humorously, but has had a lot of issues with how it can be abused. Deepfake someone into some incriminating footage and you suddenly have an easy court case or blackmail on your hands. It's also been used to superimpose celebrity faces on Porn films, which is a whole new level of wrong.
For something simple like "KSI as Ainsley Harriott", it is being used in the non-harmful way, but it's very easy to see how quickly this can be used.
Dude, I know exactly what it is...
This is exactly what I was referring to too...
It is either real or fake....
It doesn't and shouldn't matter the length at which people make something that is fake to appear real... and and worse yet: vice versa...
We should just call things by what they really are.
Real or fake...
It is the only way to properly educate people...
I fear that by introducing another notion or level such as deep Fake, simpletons, as often as it is, just get mixed up and confused with other things, possibly like hyper-realism...
That's when people can't make head or tail about what is real or not, fake or not, and
That's exactly when you have, again, simpletons starting to call things that are real to be deep Fake when they are not....
On this particular issue, it has to be only binary.
Real or fake., Only then can you educate people.
When you have Chinese produce replicas of Louis Vuitton or when you have people reproduce famous paintings, or when you have some Southern American country making obviously fake imitation of Ferrari to sell to unsuspecting customers, do you call such things as Deep Fake?
No you don't. You call them out and everyone recognize the deceit and we all accept (then do what we want accordingly).
I personally think the word deep fake, as you and I both clearly understand its intention, BUT for most people, they are making the education and the understanding, and they just don't know how to correctly use it and they start labelling it left and right and, that's when things become a clusterfake....
. See what I did there.I believe this word deep dake is socially dangerous...
... When people can unintentionally, and worse yet intentionally, start calling something that is real, to be deep fake, and simpletons who can't even tell the difference, start repeating that....
That's when you are able to fool 70 million people into thinking anything you want... Even even more worldwide...
It is a simple but effective and very dangerous word, it has a lot more impact and effect than everyone give it credit for.
We all should Immediately stop using it...
It doesn't matter how many layers or levels the lies have gone through, let's call them fake.
We already have an issue telling the difference between real and fake, Let's not add deep fake.
Deep fake is something that is done really well to fool tinfoil hat wearer, but in the end it is still a fake.
Call everything fake by what it really is and explain...
Deep fake can be applied to Magic.
Deep fake can be applied to Movies and Cinematography...
Deep fake is similar to loosing your senses and no longer being Able to tell what is up or down when you are flying with a jet fighter pilot...
When you start loosing your orientation, just say so. Don't say deep fake...
Because Deep fake can be refuted for the wrong reasons.
Calling things deep fake has the connotation of casting doubt on everything else, real or not.
I know people who believe what is real to you And I to be deep fake, and they also believe deep fake stuff to be real...
Fake is universally recognized, once you point it out...
IMHO, I say not to use the words deep fake anymore. It further divides.
Real vs Fake, it is much simpler to deal with, and it still challenging enough as is...
we all should be saying: "It is Fake, there is nothing deep about it."
Edit:
I didn't realize how much I wrote...
In short... I am just slightly annoyed by this word: deep fake
/Rant
Last edited:
- 12,962
- United Kingdom
Bro, whoa
It's just a name for a technique of video editing, used to distinguish it from other ways of manipulating images, not some massive conspiracy to change the definition of the word "deep". There are many types of "fake", a deepfake is just one of those types.
It's just a name for a technique of video editing, used to distinguish it from other ways of manipulating images, not some massive conspiracy to change the definition of the word "deep". There are many types of "fake", a deepfake is just one of those types.
- 4,578
- SoCal
- GTP_MooCow
To you and i, Deep Fake has a fun connotation,
but unfortunately, for others, and often than not, lunatics takes these things very seriously .... and they make it a massive conspiracy theory, when it simply started as a sarcasm/troll/mockery/entertainment (movies and cinema "Avatar" is such an example) ....
But yea... I hate the word deepfake when being used in those sort of political context, or any context at all.. that's my pet peeve and i am sticking to it lol
Last edited:
- 12,962
- United Kingdom
Deepfaking the face of ...Emma Watson/Scarlett Johansson/Jennifer Lawrence etc... onto a pornstar's face to make it look like that actor is involved in the act is a deeply unsettling thing - and it's not a conspiracy because it's actually happening at an alarming rate. It's not "lunatics taking things too seriously", it's "lunatics taking something too far" - two very different things. Something as powerful, clever and easy as face swapping can very easily be abused. See this video for background on the issues with Deepfaking.
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I'm not sure I understand what the fun connotation is. The term is just a portmanteau of 'deep learning' and 'fake'--which refers to the technique used to generate the fakery, as it differs from other techniques by virtue of its reliance on artificial intelligence and machine learning rather than more direct user involvement like, say, Photoshop.
It's most definitely something to be concerned about as well. As it becomes more prevalent, video evidence of...whatever...will become less reliable. That's not the end of the world, but it isn't nothing either.
And sure, this is another arrow in the quiver of those attuned to conspiratorial claptrap, but the thing is...it doesn't even need to be. Some of those people are so out of touch with reality that they're going to make leaps regardless.
Last edited:
- 4,578
- SoCal
- GTP_MooCow
I get it, well before you sent the video...
my point is: it is a fake and lets call it as that. Period.
When things are fake, they cannot possibly be any more fake than they are...
one pixel off or one frame off from reality is a fake... no need to create another layer/level of fakeness...
by doing what you are doing, you are not properly educating people and you are doing a disservice.
Fake is Fake. Period.
Just as an example:
The word "gay".
It used to mean something different and more "positive" than what it has turned out to be/mean this past few decades... (Not to say that being "gay" is necessarily "negative", i am not an expert on the topic).
Similarly "deep fake" for you and i, we know what it is... it's for "fun" but we have the cultural and technical understanding and more importantly the ability and the common acceptance that it is just fake very well done digitally.
But then you have people with bad intention using that word/technique "deep fake" in a different more perverse connotation/context than it already is...
Reminds me of the movie Inception... Where do we stop...
Anyhow, i am going to stop here...
To say the least, we have to be extremely careful using the term "deep fake", and IMO it would be much better not to use it.
Last edited:
- 12,962
- United Kingdom
You still haven't understood Deepfake at all.
It's a type of fake, in the same way a Bulldog is a type of dog. A video of a hairy biped walking in a forest is a fake video of Bigfoot, but it isn't a Deepfake. Do you see why this distinction is necessary?
It's a type of fake, in the same way a Bulldog is a type of dog. A video of a hairy biped walking in a forest is a fake video of Bigfoot, but it isn't a Deepfake. Do you see why this distinction is necessary?
- 4,578
- SoCal
- GTP_MooCow
No i get it... it is you who dont seem to get that i already get it...
You dont seem to get my point still, which is that i dont see that distinction to be necessary.
A deep fake is still a fake... a bulldog is still a dog...
For simpletons, they dont need to know the difference, only that it is fack....
This can easily become a problem when people call Bigfoot deep fake, and as you point it out, it just a fake...
Do you now see why it is not necessary to make the distinction, when it serves no good purpose...
It was all much simpler during the time of photoshop...
/i am out. we are in agreement, and we are just arguing on semantic...
Last edited:
@CTznOfTime -- A Bulldog is a dog, but it is more precisely a Bulldog -- not a Chihuahua, Great Dane, Pug, Shiba Inu, or Giant Alaskan Malamute. A square is a quadrilateral, but it is more precisely a square. A deepfake is fake, but it is more precisely a deepfake.
You are insisting that a square need only be called a quadrilateral.
You are insisting that a square need only be called a quadrilateral.
- 16,109
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
Maybe we should call it a "face-swap video that's been created with AI Deep Learning"
- 17,850
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
I have a love/hate relationship with the word "ridiculous". I love this word as it's just the perfect word to describe things I encounter on this planet, but hate it because I keep misspelling it.
- 29,726
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
In what manner do you misspell it? Something that's ridiculous arouses and/or deserves ridicule. If you're less likely to misspell the latter and you cognitively link it to the former, as it is linked, you may train yourself to spell the former correctly.
