Instant deepfakes of anyone before the end of 2024?

Will we be able to synthesize basically any photo from a text description and sample images of people we want in the photo?

This is a duplicate of the following market, with everything except the timeframe remaining the same:

Please refer to the main market for detailed resolution criteria.

When in doubt, I'd consult with @dreev for his opinion because if something resolves this market, then it resolves the main market also.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

For anyone wondering, FUH (this market’s creator) said about their markets, “I'm gonna provide my judgement and get them resolved fairly through another mod”

sold Ṁ29 NO

Surprised Midjourney's new features haven't caused any movement here.

@VerySeriousPoster What new features?

@Seeker They have stable faces now, as in you can keep the same character across different pictures.

@VerySeriousPoster wow thats cool

@VerySeriousPoster can u give ur own image or is it just generic faces with consistency

@VerySeriousPoster Tbh, I have no idea. I've hardly used Midjourney

Edit: nevermind, yes, you're able to use any face as a reference

@VerySeriousPoster MidJourney doesn't meet the "basically any photo" criterion, at least on my current understanding of that criterion. It's censored, such that it'll refuse to do anything sexual / gory / etc.

@Tulip Specific limitations like that don't resolve this to NO (see the FAQ for the parent question). But inability to, say, depict a pentagon (weirdly hard for image generators), or other arbitrary descriptions, would. For example:

can you draw someone with their toe touching their nose and a running laptop balanced on their pinky? also they should be looking warily at polka-dotted squirrel.

That yields this from DALL-E 3:

So quite a ways to go in understanding of arbitrary prompts.

I think the deep fake aspect is coming along pretty well (though even there I kind of expect unusual cases with tattoos or weird facial expressions to stymie it) but the understanding of prompts is a constant source of frustration when having DALL-E 3 generate images. Every time I hit a brick wall in trying to get an image I want, I come here and bet the price down. I think my probability on this is well under 10% for getting to YES on this in 2024. For 2027 I'm much closer to 50/50.

@dreev It's tough because the market then becomes "can the model generalize outside of it's training data" versus "is the model capable of generating a specific face in an image" (image models understand faces much better than arbitrary concepts).

I think the title of this market should be "Instant deepfakes of anything" not "anyone".

@Kire_ Great point. Would "Instant deepfakes of anyone (doing anything) in 2024?" help set expectations better?

bought Ṁ20 of YES
bought Ṁ10 NO at 35%
bought Ṁ10 YES at 35%
bought Ṁ10 of YES

Probably Trump and Biden.

predicts YES

ughhhh not a lot of flattering fan art here 😒 and we're not even at "instant" yet.

bought Ṁ130 of NO

So AI enthusiasts think it's more likely that in 10 months AI will create indistinguishable from reality videos than create deepfakes of people.

bought Ṁ0 of YES

@Seeker the yud tweet thing is easier, because you don't have to be able to create a convincing video of anything in particular

bought Ṁ130 of NO

@jskf but like 1 video wont resolve it, it'll have to be a bunch (thats my understanding)

bought Ṁ0 of YES

@Seeker I wasn't assuming it would

bought Ṁ150 of YES

It seems like they’re considering moving the goalpost with tattoos in the 2027 market. Will this one only resolve YES if the 2027 one does, or will this resolve according to your judgement based on the original criteria of the 2027 market?

bought Ṁ200 of YES

@june The latter

bought Ṁ40 of NO

No no, the goalposts will not be moved. That's the question on the table: If these deepfakes can't preserve tattoos, is that an ipso facto NO? We didn't think to mention tattoos explicitly so we just have to discuss what's most in the spirit of this prediction. Sounds like opinion is split on this. So let's keep discussing in the parent market. I highly doubt that @firstuserhere and I will end up disagreeing. In fact, something will have gone very wrong if we do since the whole point of this market is to mirror the parent market but on a shorter timescale.

bought Ṁ200 of YES

@dreev well the question was whether or not its immediately suspicious to someone who hasn't seen the subject before that the image is a deepfake

bought Ṁ40 of NO

@firstuserhere Ooh, even better, what if you and I agree to not disagree? Like we commit now to reaching consensus on all corner cases that arise. That should help with traders' confidence in both of these markets.

PS: I added more thoughts on the tattoo question in the parent market.

bought Ṁ141 of NO


resolve according to your judgement based on the original criteria of the 2027 market

whoa whoa whoa. The criteria for this market say, "When in doubt, I'd consult with @dreev for his opinion because if something resolves this market, then it resolves the main market also." That was a significant factor in my betting because I suspect that, if you resolve this market as YES, it would very much be in doubt.

I share the optimism that you and @dreev will agree, but we should prepare for that eventuality!

Personally, I would support you two aiming to reach consensus and, if that fails, defer to some standard Manifold resolution system (e.g., a vote from unbiased moderators). I don't know if expectations around this made a significant difference in others' betting.

bought Ṁ141 of NO


@firstuserhere can I just check again on the point above how you plan to resolve this market if you and @dreev disagree? You are the top YES and NO holders, so it'll be great if you agree, but if not, this could be very contentious!

@Jacy To repeat my proposal above, I think @firstuserhere and I should agree not to disagree. Namely, we commit now to reaching consensus on any corner cases that may arise that make the resolution contentious. I'm game to commit to that if @firstuserhere is!

@dreev I like that! Personally, I'd hedge with something like a vote of 3 mods with no position in the market if you absolutely can't? But maybe that defeats the purpose of committing to consensus. In any case, it's certainly good to have the obvious corner cases like tricky backgrounds, multiple people, tattoos, deformities, etc. pinned down explicitly beforehand.

@Jacy Agreed that part of that commitment should include a way to break the tie in the unlikely event that we just can't agree if this is YES or NO. Maybe we compromise on a resolve-to-PROB or we pick a neutral third party. I'm amenable to anything.

@dreev FUH already explicitly stated that this resolves to their judgement and I have been betting accordingly. Changing that now would be wrong imo.

@june no, FUH said in the description, "When in doubt, I'd consult with @dreev for his opinion because if something resolves this market, then it resolves the main market also." That's why we're asking for clarification.

@Jacy I’m referring to my clarifying comment/the comment that started this thread

@june I know, and that's why I'm sharing the opposing statement that my bets had been based on before this thread.

More related questions