it's worth noting that it wasn't used deceptively to spread false messages, just to show the candidate speaking a different language (or dialect, my Hindi is nonexistent). Inevitably it will be used to spread actual lies, but in this case it wasn't nefarious IMO
Comments
it's worth noting that it wasn't used deceptively to spread false messages, just to show the candidate speaking a different language (or dialect, my Hindi is nonexistent). Inevitably it will be used to spread actual lies, but in this case it wasn't nefarious IMO
It is very important for a politician to be able to speak the language/dialect of the target voter with some competence.
Although the deep fake doesn't change the message in any meaningful way, it does affect his ability to win votes.
It is far more deceptive than a news/documentary style dub where the dub audio starts a couple of seconds after the original audio is queued in.
If it wasn't a language the candidate speaks, then it was dishonest. If it was, why not just record them speaking it?
I see you're firmly on the "subs" side of the eternal "subs v. dubs" debate.