Tom Hanks has warned fans that an ad for a dental plan that appears to use his image is in fact fake and was created using artificial intelligence.
In a message posted to his 9.5 million Instagram followers, the actor said his image was used without his permission. “BEWARE!! There’s a video out there promoting some dental plan with an AI version of me. I have nothing to do with it,” Hanks wrote over a screenshot of a computer-generated image of himself from the clip.
The Oscar winner has expressed concerns in the past about the use of AI in film and TV, although he has not shied away from approving digitally altered versions of himself in film.
Right? I remember watching some time ago a AI-generated video of an actress - I think it was Kirsten Stewart - doing a monologue. It was eerily undistinguishable from reality. This is happening, and actors have all the rights to be upset by it until proper compensation rules are in place.
I think this goes deeper than just actors compensation. This will take things to a new level when this hits courtrooms. Imagine sitting there watching a video of you doing something you never actually did entered into evidence.
So perfect!
Even as a professional editor for over a decade who is actively looking for them, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell what is AI generated and what is real. I’m right most of the time, but most of the time is only like 75% of the time. And again, this is when I am actively looking for them. And the tech is only getting better.
Society is going to have to adjust to actually demand some proof of authenticity when it comes to content like this.
The good news is that techniques like public-private key cryptography do actually provide a way to do this, so at least on the technical side, this is a solvable problem. The harder part is getting people to question content that they want to be true, like political propaganda that affirms their own beliefs and biases.
Just imagine the mess we'll be in when you can just generate an unlimited amount of videos of some disliked minority committing fake crimes and send them directly to people that you know will be receptive to radicalization, since you've already identified them through data brokers and targeted advertising.
Maybe this is just me getting older - hell, it probably is - but I'm getting more and more detached from tech in general and trying to find more meaning and enjoyment in real-life interaction, community, friendships, and connection, as well as more physical hobbies. I'm not convinced that humans are really equipped to mentally handle the world we're creating, and I'm finding myself not wanting much to do with it.
As a famous celebrity who has to deal with this a lot, here is an easy guide to tell real celebrities accounts from fake celebrities accounts on the Internet: Ask yourself, would it make sense for the real celebrity to promote these product on social media?
Does it make sense for Academy Award winning character actor Tom Hanks to promote a random dental service? No, therefore, that is a fake account.
Does it make sense for pop superstar Taylor Swift to promote her latest re-recorded albums on her social media? Yes, therefore, that's a real account.
Does it make sense for Academy Award nominated actress Margot Robbie to promote her latest movie on her first personal social media account in years? Yes, therefore, that's a real account.
Does it make sense for Matt Damon, Tom Brady, or Kim Kardashian to promote cryptocurrency on their social media despite never showing any interest in technology before? No, therefore, these are fake accounts.
Does it make sense for Elon Musk, the richest man in the world in his 50s, to act like an immature middle schooler and post bad memes on the Internet to sell a cryptocurrency based on a dead meme? No, therefore, that's a fake account.
This method works every time.
You're welcome, soloner. Now, would you guys help support our strike and the livelihood of the majority of actors by buying a shirt or a mug? Here's your chance to look like a real celebrity.
Really dude? You think you that this is actually Margot? Lol hats off to you, youngster
woosh 🤭
I appreciate that not only does Margot Robbie want to entertain me, she wants to educate me. True renaissance woman.
That's another joke. The other two for FTX and EthereumMax respectively.
People made fun of the ad and the lines he said but people also don't understand that he didn't write it. Crypto.com was already going to fail by the time their crazy expensive ad came out. Matt Damon on the other hand seems to be doing just fine.
He’s an actor, so I don’t think anyone actually thought he wrote anything he said on that ad, but it was an endorsement, which is more difficult to parse whether or not he actually invested in or supported it. And, probably like most people, I didn’t care enough to read in depth about it afterward.
I didn't see anything in the article about it, but is Tom Hanks not suing these people?
Does it make sense for Elon Musk, the richest man in the world in his 50s, to act like an immature middle schooler and post bad memes on the Internet to sell a cryptocurrency based on a dead meme? No, therefore, that’s a fake account.
This actually would make sense for someone like Elon Musk.
... That's the joke. Dogecoin.
I love that this account still exists
No way you're actually Margot, there's no girls on the internet
Somehow I don't think you're a reliable source on that, Miss Anthropy
Hi! 💖
Does it make sense for an internationally recognized actress to come into the Fediverse to explain too notch level critical thinking....hmm. Agree with the points - yep. Think it's actually Margot Robbie - doubtful.
I'm just applying the above rules
That's the beautiful thing. It doesn't really matter if she's actually Margot Robbie.
If she isn't, she's a person (probably - AI/ML systems are really good at tricking us these days) that posts generally amusing, positive, and pro-labor things.
If she is Margot Robbie, then, she's a person that posts generally amusing, positive, and pro-labor things, while also having been publicly recognized as being skilled and talented at her day job.
Either way, it's someone that I'm glad is active on Lemmy.
New sincerity. :)
That's a phrase that I was unfamiliar with. Thank you!
Ask yourself why you care what celebrities are promoting in the first place.
Even if they are being 'real', odds are they were just paid to say good things about a product they never actually use to take advantage of idiots who can't think for themselves.
Does it make sense for Academy Award nominated actress Margot Robbie to promote her latest movie on her first personal social media account in years?
does it make sense for academy award nominated actress Margot Robbie to cross the picket line to promote the barbie movie on lemmy during the sag-aftra strike? yep, she's well-known for her anti-union politics and general disdain for labour. therefore, this must be a real account.
If you have been following me here at all, you would know that I have been extremely vocal about my support of the strike here, and I have been keeping with the strike rules and only mentioned the name of the movie ONCE here after the strike started.
Your smug accusation only shows your own ignorance, while I do try to be nice here, I will not stand for you making light of our fight for survival as some kind of gotcha.
Now kindly fuck off.
Dune 2 was postponed because of the strike, and I was really looking forward to it.
I mean I'm REALLY looking forward to that movie, but if my minor inconvenience means a better standard of living/opportunity for a large amount of people I'll wait for however long.
I learned that Americans get very offended at that word... it takes a lot of restraint.
Source for that? Because all I'm seeing is footage of her striking with SAG and pro-union comments she's made online.
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/...
The attitude toward celebrities on Lemmy versus on Mastodon is really weird. Same thing with reddit, a lot of the time. Like, okay, I have no idea if that's really Margot Robbie or not, but famous people do use the internet. Attention doesn't make them a different species that forgets how to use keyboards or something.
Might as well be nice?
i thought we were just joking around here, but if you're being serious: there's zero chance that's actually Margot Robbie.
or maybe like a 1% chance it's actually Margot Robbie, but for the last three months she's been playing a character on lemmy that's a goofy impersonation of Margot Robbie that breaks character all the time.
I mean, I have no idea if she's Margot Robbie, but I figure I might as well treat her as if she is. Doesn't cost me anything. It's basically the solution to the solipsism problem with lower stakes.
Personally, I think doing a goofy impression of yourself and occasionally breaking character would be a good way to fly under the radar.
…although he has not shied away from approving digitally altered versions of himself in film.
Besides being irrelevant, does this seem a little bit judgmental to anyone else?
If he didn't want to be digitally altered, he shouldn't have given us the idea.
Between voice cloning, gpt-4, and social media, the technology exists TODAY for scammers to call you at 4am with the voice and intimate knowledge of a loved-one, and tell you that they need you to send them money for an emergency.
You thought old people were easy to scam before? We're about to enter a golden age of manipulation.
My grandmother is a Greek immigrant and doesn't speak English very well. Back in 2017 someone called her and told her myself and my mother were dead and she spent like 3 days freaking out and crying. I can only imagine what would happen if someone were to do that today while emulating a voice she knew...
And/or for signs of being under duress.
Great, now we need a safe word just to talk on the phone
Nice try
Chariots chariots
Yes. I highly recommend your set one up today.
They would fail. I have many ways to corroborate and they know I don't answer the phone and to call 911. Nobody is calling me in a emergency ever. I don't drive, I don't give money to anyone etc... People need to have the policy of if you can make a call and it's an emergency then call 911. Also always have roadside assistance.
Didn't this happen recently? I thought I saw an article about a guy in India who got an ai-faked video call from a friend who needed a quick money transfer to get out of a tough spot. He said it was sketchy but believable. It's already here
Yes, the technology exists. No, it's not a threat for your grandma. Scammers would first need need to know which phone number is your grandmas, them they need to find out the relatives of your grandma, obtain enough sample data from your voice and train an AI model for at least a few hours to imitate your voice. That's not a realistic scenario to do for a slim chance of getting a few thousand bucks. This kind of social engineering attack is only viable for very rich persons and businesses.
I'm sorry, but your assessment of how difficult that would be is WAAAAAY off.
Scammers are already doing stuff like this en masse with highly customized email scams.
The way this scam would work is to start with YouTubers, where grabbing the voice data is easy. Then you find their Facebook profile... Very easy, since people use the same usernames, or they go out of their way to link their profiles.
It's a pretty easy step to make friend requests with those people. And then a very easy leap to find their relatives real names and towns through their Facebook connections.
Now you take their connections and towns and do reverse phone number lookups.
ALL of this can be automated. Every step.
The voice cloning and gpt-powered phone calls can be automated now, too.
The only reason this isn't happening at scale is that scammers haven't had enough time to adapt yet.
I'd guess that most people with public social media accounts would be susceptible to something like this. As long as there are videos available with the person speaking, which are plentiful by way of instagram reels / tiktoks, the rest of what the commenter described above sounds totally feasible.
You don't need another example if you understand how many people are covered in that category.
Do you have any idea how many people have at least 5 minutes of audio on YouTube? (That's all you need for voice cloning), tens of millions? Hundreds of millions?... And how many of them have a Facebook, insta, tic Tok, or Twitter account? Virtually all of them.
If you wrote a script to do what I outlined, it would run FOREVER, because he users would be signing up and making videos faster than this script could ever hope to keep up.
Do you have a recorded voicemail greeting? There are techniques now to train an AI voice on as little as 3 seconds of audio.
Anyone got a link to the ad? Love to see how good it is or not.
I asked the same question. Somebody sent me this but I think it might be a trick.
Ha ha yeah I’m just messing with everyone
Simpsons did it first.
There’s your answer, fishbulb.
Dental plan!
Wilson needs braces.
The good thing about this is that people maybe start questioning if a product for some reason gets "better" because their favorite actor says so - because he got money for doing so.
Imho, he doesn't need to warn his fans, they are not affected by this at all. Maybe the toothpaste is even a bit cheaper compared to the one that actually paid a (probably very pricey) Hollywood star for their ad. He's the victim, not his fans.
To be fair, if Skynet hunts humanity down, the terminators sounding like America's Sweetheart Tom Hanks does come as some consolation.
"Reach for the sky!"
Anything for you, TH!
Black Mirror has been a reality for a few years now
That would be a sweet ending without a doubt
Tom Hanks and some woman going
DENTAL PLAN!
Lisa needs braces!
DENTAL PLAN!
Lisa needs braces!
DENTAL PLAN!
Lisa needs braces!
In Portugal the law forbids taking pictures of a person without consent in public places if the person is the main subject(it’s okay if you’re filming something else and the person happens to pass). I used to think it was too limiting a law, but now I think everyone will need this sort of legal protection.
Copyright is very strictly for creative works, which your likeness is not.
You might be able to stretch trademark law into applying here, but my understanding is that, at least at the federal level, there's not really much of a legal framework for dealing with this sort of stuff yet. Hopefully we'll get something soon.
When used for fraud, absolutely. But it can also be used for parody and satire, which is strongly constitutionally protected as free speech.
A case like this is pretty open and shut since it's a blatant scam, but what if it was simply a fake Tom Hanks saying political statements he disagrees with? Would someone be able to argue parody? Probably not successfully, but there is a blurry line there. What if you simply had to include a disclaimer that it's AI generated? Would all content be allowable in that case?
where is the link to the videos?
Found this site , but only shows clips, might not even be from the ad.
thanks
Dental plan
Chet needs braces
Dental plan
Chet needs braces
Dental plan
Chet needs braces
Hanksvision just as 30 Rock envisioned it.
Dudesy Mugs
Waiting for the inevitable person to come along in a minute saying "IT's nOT StEaLING - thAT MeaNs To TAKe SomeTHIng. hE STill hAS HIS LIKENESS!"
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
Aaaand it’s happening just as we all predicted. Stealing likeness in a whole new way
save