[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

I see your point. I'm not sure I agree with all of the statements in your original comment but this one that caught my attention is a pretty minor distinction. CGI in movies is essentially this same thing but done manually by humans, sometimes even without input from the actor: see Carrie Fisher in whatever Star Wars movie I forgot.

There's still something about the scale of effort that seems to change this, though. For example, even if a government could hire people to produce a fake photograph, and even do so in time to use the photograph for some political manipulation, I'm not so convinced they could do so with a video. Even considering that large organizations could already do this technically, the ease of function that this allows is pretty worrying, though I do otherwise think it is a good thing that this technology is "out of the bag", so to speak.

[superkuh]

Deepfake videos are quite terrible right now. The frame to frame consistency for novel created images in series is difficult to do with stablediffusion even with controlnet, etc. Maybe in another handful of years novel deepfakes videos will look real. But right now they definitely do not.

Unless you're reversing your prior point and now talking exclusively about only deepfakes that alter existing video (like face replacement) and not about novel created from scratch video. The face replacement stuff can almost look real.