Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom AI The Media

A Deepfake Queen Delivered an Alternative Christmas Speech to Warn about Misinformation (cnn.com) 47

"A fake Queen Elizabeth danced across TV screens on Christmas as part of a 'deepfake' speech aired by a British broadcaster," reports CNN: The broadcaster said the video was supposed to offer "a stark warning about the advanced technology that is enabling the proliferation of misinformation and fake news in a digital age." Channel 4 annually accompanies the Queen's traditional speech with an "alternative Christmas message." This message has been aired since 1993. It has long attracted controversy. Previous people to have delivered the alternative speech include Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former president of Iran. Other notable invitees include US whistleblower Edward Snowden, Jesse Jackson and the children who survived the 2017 Grenfell Tower fire.

But the 2020 iteration is rather different. This year Channel 4 hired VFX studio Framestore to create a fake Queen Elizabeth, who spoke candidly about personal matters. The video was manipulated using artificial intelligence technology. The deepfake Queen discusses Prince Harry and Meghan's move to North America, saying: "There are few things more hurtful than someone telling you they prefer the company of Canadians."

The fake Queen also performed a Tik Tok dance routine...

In her real Christmas message, the Queen commended frontline workers for their efforts during the pandemic and offered condolences to families who were unable to celebrate together due to coronavirus-related restrictions.

Channel 4 described their video as a "comedic parody," saying it raised an important question. "Is what we see and hear always as it seems?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Deepfake Queen Delivered an Alternative Christmas Speech to Warn about Misinformation

Comments Filter:
  • by Aryeh Goretsky ( 129230 ) on Saturday December 26, 2020 @10:41AM (#60867236) Homepage

    Hello,

    Just in case anyone wants to view the video without having to register or use a VPN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

  • The visuals were maybe convincing, but the script was pure cringe, making it completely obvious it was a fake.

    • by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Saturday December 26, 2020 @11:20AM (#60867298)

      The visuals were maybe convincing, but the script was pure cringe, making it completely obvious it was a fake.

      That was the point. Your brain told you "the Queen wouldn't say these things" while your eyes and ears told you otherwise. The message was "don't just trust, investigate."

    • Actually, I found the visuals to be more disappointing than convincing. So many artefacts, facial expression and audio out of sync, and like it was texture mapped on an ancient 3D rendering engine.
      • by OzPeter ( 195038 )

        Actually, I found the visuals to be more disappointing than convincing. So many artefacts, facial expression and audio out of sync, and like it was texture mapped on an ancient 3D rendering engine.

        5 years ago you wouldn't even have considered this level of detail possible.
        5 years from now you probably won't be able to tell the deep fake from the real person at first glance.
        10 years from now and its anyones guess how pervasive deep fake technology will be.

        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          10 years from not the visuals may be convincing, but in interactive mode you'll still be able to tell it isn't some particular person that you know well. A public figure, however. ...

          • by HiThere ( 15173 )

            Sorry about that space in the extended ellipsis near the end, but I needed it to avoid the lameness filter.

  • You know, sometimes, something actually isn't cool ... it's really just obnoxious and annoying.

    saying it raised an important question. "Is what we see and hear always as it seems?"

    Oh, thank you so much for this startling new thought that nobody has thought anything about ...

    • Since it's just one step beyond "Is what we see and hear always true?", hopefully most people won't be affected by deepfakes. They're too tribal to care about such trivialities as "is this lie coming from a real person?", they'll continue to believe what others in their group already believe.

  • I have thought that several of the royal family were examples of primitive early CGI for a while, perhaps a way to get more money from the government by simulating relatives. Camilla Parker Bowles is really not that convincing for example.
  • ... means that everyone can only put what they see and hear into context based on their personal experiences. Each person has a unique point of view. Since news has been presented with some bias, sometimes minor, sometimes extreme, for the past 50 years, post Cronkite, people often simply accept what they're told since if it fits into what they already believe. Good luck knowing what is real or not in the future when videos are PROVING that altered news might be real. Fun times ahead.
  • Mockery etc of an over ninety.
    Nothing redeeming in it at all

  • If this is the best "deep-fake" has to offer so far I think were OK.

    Spoiler alert - Not so deep

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Working...