It seems that deepfake technology has finally hit the news, and now everyone is terrified of it. In practice, the technology makes a collage, which could also be done with photoshop (or with some video editing software), but since deep-learning is involved then it becomes a monstrous thing simply because no one has understood what they do. those technologies.

So, let's start from the beginning. You know your very attractive neighbor / cousin / teacher / colleague? Well. Now close your eyes. Imagine her naked. Did you succeed? Of course you have, you have done it fifty thousand times before today.

Congratulations, you have created a deepfake in your mind. You have, that is, stripped a woman with eyes, as they say. Except that when you undress a woman with your eyes, you actually do it with the cerebral cortex, but whoever coined the term believed that vision depended on the eyes.

Having said that undressing women is a matter of imagination, now the problem is that we would like to have the photograph, the painting, in short, something that we can really look at. We have several alternatives:

• be a painter or have a painter as a friend. In this case, you can give a photograph of the colleague bbona and have a picture painted that you will keep in your home. Obviously the colleague will never come to your house, so she will never know. And even if she does, you can say that it is a painting and that the model was similar to her.

• use photoshop and do the same thing, (or have a graphic designer do it), in order to have the photographs on the computer, ready for use. If you want to have some experience in video editing or post-production programs, you can achieve something similar using a video, which I know of a company party.

• use a deep-fake program. This has the same effect, but is cheaper

• have a skillful imagination (to undress the colleague) and powerful (ie capable of arousing in you the same emotion that you would try to see the naked colleague on video, on the picture or on the pc).

Clearly, the latter is the cheapest and the most popular. We've all fantasized about the pretty colleague, come on. Those who DID NOT have instead fantasized about the pretty colleague, that's all. But it's the same thing.

Deepfake is slightly LESS economic, in the sense that you have to download the software, calibrate it, do some tests, and therefore it costs much more time. But if your fantasy is not powerful enough (ie you need an INPUT through the eyes) then it is the cheapest of the feasible ones.

Deepfake is not artificial “intelligence”. It is an artificial IMAGINATION program. He limits himself to imagining his neighbor as you imagine her, but without the effort of really imagining her.

The problem of privacy, therefore, is INVENTED. The photograph of the stripped girl does NOT portray her naked, at least as much as your imagination does not portray her actually giving you a blowjob. It is a construct, produced by an artificial imagination system.

Some interesting considerations could be made about why people, who are normally gifted with natural imaginations, need artificial imagination, but the point is that the news is being given like this:

that is, as if the girls were "undressed" by the software. But that's not the case, and you can prove it yourself: take a volunteer who has a tattoo in a spot that is covered in the original photo. Pass it to deepfake. You will soon discover that deepfake returns a photo of the naked girl, but there is no tattoo . And this is obvious, since the software cannot "undress" girls. He can only "imagine" them naked: but the same thing applies to you.

After all, if you don't know that the girl has a tattoo in a place you've never seen, you won't even imagine the tattoo. (or the scar, or a particular physical detail). When you go for the first time with a woman that you have imagined a thousand times, you always find "surprises", details that you had not imagined, because you could not have been aware of them. No two women are alike. (Ok, ok, I don't have the numbers to make statistics. Let's say I'm speculating based on a number of personal anecdotes).

This is the first point: privacy has nothing to do with it. It is only an artificial imagination, very similar to the human imagination. That's all. The considerations to be made would be other, not those of privacy.

But then why is it causing a stir? It is said that now:

even a mass instrument. And why, exactly?

In short, the use of this fake app is not to replace the erotic imagination, but to allow "some males" to "take revenge" on the women of the neighborhood.

I don't know what neighborhood this lady lives in, but I see at least two problems:

• if you want to argue that humiliating other women, or disgracing them, is an exclusive of some males BUT NOT some women, or the majority, you need convincing numbers. Otherwise it is not clear where the statement comes from: I must be given a COMPARATIVE study that compares the behavior of men and women, and shows that women never humiliate other women, as "some men" do.

The rest of the pippone for which the app was created to "push women back in life" I leave it to the crunchers. There remains, some say, the theme of revenge porn and the "racket". So I imagine that there are statistics on these rackets, or that there are numbers, cases, of revenge porn done with such an app. Well.

Here it is: there are no known cases, but “it is foreseeable that it will happen”, since the magnitude of the phenomenon is impressive. A person who makes qualitative forecasts for me based on a single and quantitative dimension, for me must be expelled from any scientific field, and also from the vicinity. It's like saying that since the amount of comics for sale is huge, it is foreseeable that Spiderman will arrive. Pure science.

All I see in this "news" is that:

• we wanted to make a commercial for that Sensity AI, presenting the founders and customers.

• they wanted to make an advertising spot for this Costanza Sciubba and the DataDotOrg company. (fuck, in 2020 you still use "dot" because "it's a lot of internet" ….)

• while we're at it, we point the finger at "certain males" who use technology to "push women back into life." And of course they are behind the evil Russians, to give votes to Die Partei , the German party that proposes to decriminalize any crime by accusing the Russians of doing it. (see the last point, “Der Russe ist an allem schuld”).

Only the invective against capitalism and the Balkan balcony are missing, and we are at the level of Elio's May 1st song.

An invented thesis, which speaks of a danger documented by ZERO cases, which cites unspecified studies on the fact that "certain males" (but not certain females) love to humiliate women, and that predictably they will since there are a lot of images on the internet.

And let's be clear: "governments are unprepared", eh.

They don't have their "science"….