[upsidesinclude]

This makes absolutely no sense.

If you wanted anonymity and were willing to go to these lengths, then the face could be fully fictitious and AI generated. Thereby placing no one in fear of government retribution.

This only makes sense if you filmed actors and wanted to cover that glaring mistake in your propaganda, because you lack the necessary talent to actually render them with AI.

I don't buy it. Not a fan of authoritarian regimes, but this stinks.

[richbell]

> This only makes sense if you filmed actors and wanted to cover that glaring mistake in your propaganda, because you lack the necessary talent to actually render them with AI.

Can you elaborate what you mean by this? I don't understand how you're concluding that this only makes sense if it's to cover up propaganda. Using actors as surrogates to protect people is a common practice, and this is a logical step forward (albeit one I disagree with).

[upsidesinclude]

Read my comment again.

This press release only makes any sense if they intend to preemptively combat investigations which show that these are actors and not the people that they claim.

[richbell]

I read your comment several times before replying; it still doesn't make sense.

> This press release only makes any sense if they intend to preemptively combat investigations which show that these are actors and not the people that they claim.

That assumes that there was a pretense that the people and identies are real. Documentaries and exposés commonly use methods to protect their subject's identities, including using actors and distorting the face/voice.