99
The White House is Using AI to create Trump's Charlie Kirk speech. His pinky disappears at 0:18 seconds! (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/lemmytoday@lemmy.today
57 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

At 18 seconds into this speech Trumps Pinky disappears under his hand and his ring finger 'becomes' his pinky. This is clearly AI.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)

What qualifies you to be an expert?

You can see above his head in the window that the green blur in the trees changes at the same time.

Right, that's suspicious too. What's your explanation for the trees suddenly moving?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I’ve done this for over 2 decades.

    Ok, you made a step in the right direction. The green blur is the tree changing because of the wind possibly. Could also be a light of any sort, artificial or the sun.

    He said something like this on the A roll:

    Charlie Kirk is a mysoginistic asshole who I used as a pawn to get more young voters to like an old fart like me

    At this point, he lets one of those pungent McNugget farts rip which travels all the way outside and swings the tree branches and the light reflection in the blur of the trees.

    Then he corrected himself and said:

    I’m just kidding, he’s a patriot

    Now in the editing room they need this to look like one take, so they cut off all the text in italics and ‘glued’ it together.

    The confluence of the cut at that point in the dialogue, the hand movement looking odd and the change of the tree blur in the window above him all happening at the same frame and no fingers appearing or disappearing, no other artefacts forming at other moments, points to a simple splice, cross dissolve cut to mask that he misspoke.

    Let me know if you have any more questions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Let me know if you have any more questions.

    Thanks, I do have a couple.

    I’ve done this for over 2 decades.

    What's "this"? If you are going to tell me spotting the difference between a deepfake and real footage I am going to be seriously impressed-and I'll have more questions.

    The green blur is the tree changing because of the wind possibly.

    The green blur doesn't do a quick cut though like you are saying happened with his hands. It moves in a smooth manner over to it's new position and just stays there. No 'bounce back' no swaying- it just quickly moves and stays in its new location. Now I'm not expert on the wind or trees- but that is definitely not the behavior I've noticed when the wind blows tree branches around.

    Could also be a light of any sort, artificial or the sun.

    So it sounds like despite your two decades of expertise in-something- you don't really have a clue what caused that blur to move- but you assume it's any number of things other than a Deepfake. Wouldn't a cross-dissolve of two different clips of the same scene sort of make it look like he has two pinky's in the transition frame and not one that disappears?

    Do you have an example of a scene where a cross-dissolve transition works that way?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    This is video editing and video forensics.

    Ok, let’s ignore that your expertise to post this, was feeding this video through an algorithmic AI detector.

    To understand the tree leaves in the blur above his head, do this: watch video from the very start on normal speed with audio. Don’t look at Trump or his hands. Watch the erratic pattern of the leaf movement in the window at the location where the “suspicious” blur will happen at 0:19. Notice how it moves a little when there a slight breeze and then not at all when the wind dies down.

    Notice the one time this tree blur morph happens is exactly at the same time of the hands and face/mouth anomaly and when he goes “Charlie was a … patriot”.

    Sometimes it’s more expert-like to say you can’t say for sure, than being a keyboard warrior who declares absolutisms in the hunt for ego votes. It is most likely wind, based on the evidence I’ve seen, but other things like light or refractions can’t be excluded. That all does not make it AI.

    A cross dissolve will work that way if it is dissolving between two identical frames.

    Would you change your post title to remove the absolutism from it and turn it into a (sensationalist) question or are you going to leave it up?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    Notice the one time this tree blur morph happens is exactly at the same time of the hands and face/mouth anomaly and when he goes “Charlie was a … patriot”.

    Ok? I noticed all of that- it still doesn't really explain it.

    Sometimes it’s more expert-like to say you can’t say for sure,

    Sure. My point is you are saying it could be A, or B, or C, or D, or E,F, or G- but it's definitely not H because- I said so and I'm an "Expert".

    than being a keyboard warrior who declares absolutisms in the hunt for ego votes.

    First of all there is nothing 'warrior' about my post- I'm not claiming to be some sort of badass. Secondly Idgaf about fake internet points, never have and never will. Thirdly I never claimed to be 100% certain- I laid out all the things that made me come to that conclusion. You aren't convinced- fine- but I'm equally not convinced by your explanation or claims of being an expert.

    In at least half of all discussion on the internet there has been a 'black man' who agrees with the white racists when discussing racism. Or some other 'expert' in whatever is being discussed. I'm not saying you aren't an expert, but it seems like you would have better proof of what you are saying if you were.

    A cross dissolve will work that way if it is dissolving between two identical frames.

    And I asked you for an example- there should be multiple examples readily at hand to prove this point.

    These are the two exact frames where the transition happens. There doesn't appear to be any kind of 'dissolve' happening. One minute the pinky is there, the next it's gone.

    Out of curiosity does a 'cross-dissolve' also make people's ring finger longer than their middle finger? Or is Trump just a freak like that?

    In this photo Trumps ring finger on his left hand appears to be shorter than his middle finger, almost like he was a normal human.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Your post title is making a claim with absolute certainty. If you can’t see that, I can’t continue this conversation.

    Your stills of the hand clearly show a cross dissolve. The problem you’re having is that this is the first time you’re looking at this kind of stuff, making you totally not an expert (which is why you boldly claim “White House uses AI” without any proof other than finding an out of context still with 3 fingers)

    Since you’re so hung up on the finger stuff: the cut just so happens to align his fingers move up and rotated towards him in the two frames that are spliced. You can clearly see the leftover blur from the disappearing pinky and you can see his left hand rotated towards him causing his left pointing finger to be obscured by his left middle finger. That explains why you think the length of the finger is incorrect too. The hand simply rotated between the cut.

    So forget the expert part, just look at the evidence I pointed out. The absolute zero benefit at all to Trump to “deepfake” his finger in a statement where he was about as hate-speech and on brand as he could be, should be evidence enough for you to walk away from your absolutist title of the post. But seeing how you struggle with concepts of what constitutes an expert, and don’t understand that your post title is very much a claim that you are 100% certain, I’ll leave it this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Your post title is making a claim with absolute certainty. If you can’t see that, I can’t continue this conversation.

    My post title is stating what I (still) believe to be true. I'm not going to qualify every statement I believe to be true with weasel words in the off chance I am wrong, just to please pedants who like to make a big deal over every word uttered online. I am a human being and capable of making mistakes- and If I see proof that I have made a mistake then I will admit it. If that's not good enough for you then please don't continue this conversation.

    Your stills of the hand clearly show a cross dissolve.

    The stills of the hand clearly show that the jacket and shirt are in the EXACT same position in the two frames and the only things that look fucky are his hand and fingers. What are the odds that Trump was able to position himself so precisely? I don't buy it.

    That explains why you think the length of the finger is incorrect too.

    No, it doesn't- at all. I am saying in the FIRST picture BEFORE the cut his 'ring' finger is clearly longer than his 'middle' finger. I even made sure to check and see if he wasn't some sort of a freak that just happened to have a longer ring finger than normal- did you even look at that pic?

    The absolute zero benefit at all to Trump to “deepfake” his finger

    And what was the benefit of trying to hide the cut in either scenario? They clearly did that- whether through 'traditional' editing or AI- so that point doesn't mean anything.

    But seeing how you struggle with concepts of what constitutes an expert

    I don't 'struggle' with who or what is an expert- I've just been around long enough to know not to immediately trust every Tom, Dick, or Harry who claims to be one. Judging by your defensiveness and your inability to provide ANY sources to back up your claims- I don't think it's unreasonable to continue to doubt- unless there is some other way you could prove your credentials.

    If you had simply got on and said "Hey, I happen to work in video forensics and I think this is just simply a clever editing trick that doesn't use AI", I might have been more inclined to think you might know what you are talking about, but it seems like you have issues that go far beyond simply disagreeing with my conclusion, so forgive me for being skeptical- or don't. I don't really care one way or the other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    As I said. Flat Earth is another avenue for you to venture into. Sorry I offended your ego, but you cant take any more arguments from me, so hopefully someone with less of a hard angle on your personality can show you the way, though I have to say most people would not see this echo chamber as inviting for an open discussion. You did not open yourself up for discussion, hence you making the black and white statement as your post title.

    All the best buddy, I'm not an expert, and you uncovered a real internet deepfake of a president making a regular address after he was seen in public before and after the taping of this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent