110 pointsby michaelphi10 days ago16 comments
  • TaurenHunter9 days ago
    The other day someone sent me a video where the candidate was lip syncing (very badly) the entire interview while someone spoke the answers outside the camera.

    A tool like this would be very handy for him.

    • bn-l9 days ago
      Could you post the link?
  • pjmlp9 days ago
    I think this will be a security mess, get misused for bullying with even worse outcomes, and hopefully there will be legislation that will tame these kind of applications, regardless of how technology cool it might be.
    • thih99 days ago
      Or people will get used to it and over time stop trusting video that much; just like you wouldn’t trust this comment if I wrote that I am Tim Cook[1].

      And most likely a bit of both, i.e. some extra laws and some extra awareness.

      [1]: https://www.threads.net/@jazzdispensary/post/DFdXpC2SLqU

    • 6stringmerc9 days ago
      Completely agree and the recent news about financial fraud perpetrated via video conferencing (as a component of the attack) validates your point.

      On the other hand, if tools like these don’t get out into the wild and show the dark arts potential, then it remains a straw man argument against unchecked distribution and use cases.

      Things are going to get ugly and it remains to be seen how much weight a check-box legal liability waiver will hold up.

  • puppycodes9 days ago
    It reminds me of that scene in Johnny Mnemonic where he's on the video call and the bad guy is using internet puppet fingers to impersonate someone. I think about this scene often and I feel like we are getting there. excited to try it when i have a gpu ;)
  • 3np10 days ago
    Do you plan on making source code available? (Or: how can users verify that this is not malware?)
    • michaelphi10 days ago
      hmm not sure yet on the open source thing, but how do people normally verify downloadable software has no malware? I guess we could try to distribute it on like reputable distribution channels like the app store
      • 3np10 days ago
        Personally I do take at least a quick look over sources before deciding to trust any new app. I simply won't install apps that don't provide the option.

        This used to be an ideological stance but increasingly recently it's the only pragmatic thing to do from a stance of security and safety. The playing field is increasingly hostile and if someone asks you to install their software on you machine and let it record your face and voice but refuse to show what it actually does, that is a red flag. Reasonable exceptions could include video games (which run on dedicated untrusted devices and IMO the IP aspect makes the closed-source stance more understandable there). On the other hand, this app is inherently sensitive and trusted because of its function. I don't see the reason why it needs to be closed-source.

        Malware is commonly distrubuted in all app stores. I reported some obviously pretty bad stuff that is still up a year later on Play Store, for example. Google simply doesnt bother if the case is too messy.

        > hmm not sure yet on the open source thing

        You could start with just go source-available by sharing the source with your users without going full Open Source, if you want to take the time and think about what license to use.

        • michaelphi10 days ago
          thanks for the write up! it's an electron app so i think you can also view the source code easily that way tbh
          • kaladin-jasnah10 days ago
            Another thing to add: this is Linux-only and a large amount of Linux users will care about your product being free software or under an open source license for ethical reasons. Source available doesn't mean open source, and open source means your product's license protects distribution and modifications of the code to some extent. This extent is quite debated, but you should certainly read up on this and have a strong defence for why your product isn't open source either way. I can certainly see why you wouldn't want to, but make sure to think about it especially for Linux-only. Windows and Mac users are probably more amenable to proprietary software.
          • wutwutwat9 days ago
            > you can also view the source code easily that way tbh

            sure thing, just gotta download and execute it.... WAIT A MINUTE. YOU ALMOST GOT ME! YOU SOB

            > you can also view the source code easily

            can just as easily throw it on github, if your intentions were legit

        • econ10 days ago
          Some day we should have everything sandboxed on the hw level. Like computers in 1980
      • OsrsNeedsf2P10 days ago
        Reproducible builds are the way. But source available is better for people who are worried about malware
        • inetknght10 days ago
          How do you reproduce a build without source?
          • reactordev10 days ago
            Meticulously with Ghidra I suppose. This trend of saying it’s to protect us is getting old. The only way to prevent malware is by making the source available for us to see for ourselves.
          • 3np9 days ago
            Yeah, reproducible builds are meaningless for users without a reference to reproduce.
      • prophesi10 days ago
        If this isn't monetized, is there any reason against opening its source? I personally would like to be able to disable the usage analytics and crash reports.
        • JadeNB10 days ago
          > If this isn't monetized, is there any reason against opening its source? I personally would like to be able to disable the usage analytics and crash reports.

          Although I personally deplore it and try to stay away from software that requires it, or even opts me in, I nonetheless think that it's reasonable for a developer to impose telemetry as a requirement for people to make use of their freely available software.

          • prophesi9 days ago
            The first thing I'd do if it were open source is spin up a PR to allow the telemetry to be opt-in. After two decades of being the product, it's hard to trust any data collection done by companies outside the EU.
          • 10 days ago
            undefined
          • HeatrayEnjoyer10 days ago
            As long as it's opt-in, sure. Otherwise it's be an illegal GDPR breach.
            • rockemsockem10 days ago
              Pretty sure if they just don't you use the software without opting in then it isn't a GDPR breach... You aren't entitled to use the software.
              • 4728284710 days ago
                GDPR is very clear about how you are not allowed to make data collection a requirement for use.

                It is a straightforward set of rules written in simple language and it’s not very long either. It’s not necessary to rely on third party readings or interpretations of it. Just go ahead and read it yourself and you will be well equipped to apply and argue about it.

                • phkahler9 days ago
                  But then you could not allow access from the EU.
                • rockemsockem9 days ago
                  Except I can just deny all of Europe access? Then anyone who wants to use it has to pretend to not be European through a VPN or otherwise.
                  • rockemsockem9 days ago
                    You can argue specifics and nitpick, but the outcome is effectively the same.
                • quotemstr9 days ago
                  > GDPR is very clear about how you are not allowed to make data collection a requirement for use.

                  Everyone --- even German newspapers --- flouts this rule. "Consent or pay" is a common strategy.

                  • 472828477 days ago
                    And they keep losing in courts about it.
      • fragmede10 days ago
        eh, don't worry about it. there are some weirdos with trust issues (I'm one) that are vocal about that, but regular people don't have that problem.
  • concerndc1tizen9 days ago
    Not a critique, but:

    Wouldn't using this software constitute a crime if using it to "appear as literally anyone"?

    IIRC, the have been news stories in the EU about people receiving prison sentences for creating deepfakes, although maybe it was related to adult material. But impersonation and defamation is likely covered similarly. I'd assume that all it takes is for single viewer to believe it, to legally qualify as an act of impersonation.

  • elitistphoenix9 days ago
    FATAL:setuid_sandbox_host.cc(158)] The SUID sandbox helper binary was found, but is not configured correctly. Rather than run without sandboxing I'm aborting now. You need to make sure that /tmp/.mount_phazr-wg9XvA/chrome-sandbox is owned by root and has mode 4755. Trace/breakpoint trap (core dumped)
  • windsignaling10 days ago
    I haven't installed this yet, but does it require camera access? i.e. does it "transform" your own image to the target image while maintaining facial expression, pose, etc.? Based on the animations, I'd assume it doesn't use the camera since there are techniques that can lipsync from audio.
    • michaelphi10 days ago
      no camera access needed! it directly generates the image via audio. this is more then just lip sync btw, it's animating the head of the image.
  • mentalgear10 days ago
    liveportrait or faster-liveportrait are the libraries probably.
    • michaelphi10 days ago
      similar but we directly audio to the image!
  • yieldcrv9 days ago
    if its fast enough, I’m very curious if this will get me broader acceptance as a different race in interviews with my same skillset and will report back

    If it does work better, I’m sure people will just say the market picked up as opposed to validating my life experience, but as long as I’m collecting bigger paychecks believe whatever you want

  • smcleod10 days ago
    Hey, is the source open for this?
  • terminatornet9 days ago
    the best use case for AI seems to be snapchat filters. great stuff
  • bglazer10 days ago
    Since no one has asked, why build this? What’s the use case?
    • lolinder10 days ago
      I know the culture has changed dramatically in the last ten years, so I'll take this as a sincere question coming from someone who missed out:

      Back in the old days, before 2014, people used to make computers do things just for fun. We'd write code because writing code is enjoyable, and hack on projects just to see if we could. If it made something that other people wanted to use that was a bonus, but hacking and experimenting was an end in itself. (The same, incidentally, went for writing blogs and for making YouTube videos).

      In the last ten years most of us have lost sight of that in favor of everything needing to have an "audience" or a "use case"—if there's no path to monetization then we struggle to see the point. But some of us still build things just because we can, so from time to time you'll see a project like this that hearkens back to the old school hacker spirit and has no point besides to see if we could.

      • bglazer9 days ago
        Thanks for the sincere reply. However, I feel that you avoided the question. There are plenty of projects, actually an infinite variety of things that are fun to build. I make generative line art with a pen plotter. It’s great.

        But why this? Why make a tool for anyone to impersonate another person on video calls? I apologize for the cynicism, I actually really hate that my first thought was that this is a tool for scams. But, it’s hard not to see how useful this would be for deceiving people.

        • lolinder9 days ago
          The tools for scams are already built and in use, and they're way better than what I'm seeing here. The only example I see with a real photo is a static photo with a mouth wiggling and no other movement. The rest are cartoons, with a similar effect.

          I get the concern, but squelching fun use cases isn't going to prevent people from building the bad ones or even slow them down.

        • phkahler9 days ago
          I have avoided posting a how-to on YouTube, in part because tech like this could be used to impersonate me. By creating a fake persona with fake voice (this one doesn't do that) we can make those videos.

          So the way to not be impersonated is to use the same tools to be a fake person!

        • krageon9 days ago
          People don't have to like what you like and they don't need to give you a justification either. Your tone is needlessly antagonistic and dismissive. Not to mention patronising.
      • randomNumber79 days ago
        An other possible explanation is that the author's intention is to game interviews.
  • 52-6F-629 days ago
    Why?
  • ashirviskas10 days ago
    This seems great, but why Cuda only?
    • michaelphi10 days ago
      cuda is just standard for ml. amd port soon maybe
  • Giorgi10 days ago
    what about Ms Teams?
  • Frederation9 days ago
    I see only good things happening with this closed-source tech. /s