Elsevier: Combating image misuse in science: new Humboldt database provides “missing link”. “How do researchers use and change images to make their results look more consistent or convincing? What is considered ‘appropriate’ image manipulation, and when does a scientist cross the line? These are some of the questions I’ve been trying to answer since I started writing my PhD thesis on scholarly image manipulation back in 2013. Inappropriate image manipulation is not good for the ecosystem of science. Science builds on science, and if there’s something wrong with a published paper, then you are poisoning that well.” This is a much deeper dive than a simple new resource announcement.
CNET: Adobe AI learns to spot the photo fakery Photoshop makes easy. “Photoshop fakery is getting more and more sophisticated, but Adobe Systems is using AI to detect when it’s happened. Plenty of photo editing is no big deal, but in some situations — for example, photojournalism, viral photos of politicians or celebrities and forensic evidence used by law enforcement — you might want a better idea of what’s true or not.”
TechCrunch: Facebook’s new AI research is a real eye-opener . “There are plenty of ways to manipulate photos to make you look better, remove red eye or lens flare, and so on. But so far the blink has proven a tenacious opponent of good snapshots. That may change with research from Facebook that replaces closed eyes with open ones in a remarkably convincing manner.”
Forget DeepFakes, Deep Video Portraits are way better (and worse) . “The strange, creepy world of ‘deepfakes,’ videos (often explicit) with the faces of the subjects replaced by those of celebrities, set off alarm bells just about everywhere early this year. And in case you thought that sort of thing had gone away because people found it unethical or unconvincing, the practice is back with the highly convincing “Deep Video Portraits,” which refines and improves the technique.”
Genealogy’s Star: The Ethics of Photo Restoration. “When we modify an old photograph to ‘repair’ the damage of age or to “mend” the scratches we are changing history. A photograph is a historical artifact and should be conserved but not changed. Since I took the photo and I am not trying to represent that it is accurate in any way, am I justified in altering the original for my own purposes? I am not representing that the edited photo is in any way ‘reality.’ I am can change the photo any way I want to. I would suggest that in today’s world, virtually 100% of all the published photos you see have been manipulated in Photoshop or a similar program. Does this view of “artistic license” extend to historical photos? I think not. “
Quartz: The hottest trend in AI is perfect for creating fake media. “Artificial intelligence researchers have a new best friend: the ‘generative adversarial network.’ But the flip side of this technology, which can help us enhance images and train medical algorithms, is that GANs will make hoaxes, doctored video, and forged voice clips easier to execute than ever before.”
NPR All Tech Considered: In The Future Movie Stars May Be Performing Even After They’re Dead. “Technology is threatening a lot of jobs — travel agents, truck drivers, factory workers. But here’s one you might not expect: actors. Technology in the entertainment business is on course to create digital actors who compete with live ones. The Acadamy Award-winning Blade Runner 2049 gives us a glimpse of this future. “