This comment somewhat contradicts its parent comment. Deep fake detection research will postpone the day nobody trusts video and audio.
I don't know which is better. It's very hard for me to imagine the world where nobody believes such things. Will we continue to have a third of US society believing in an alternate reality? Will people start signing every statement cryptographically, so that nobody can put fake words in their mouths? Will the need to track the reputations of news providers (rather than taking the videos they provide at face value) render spewers of nonsense less influential?
Deepfake detection will not be an in-lock-step-antithetical-force to deepfake ubiquity. It does not necessarily postpone, it will have to live with and be the "immune system" if you will. The first successful deepfake that gets us all and proves the warnings correct will certainly ignite fervent research (and maybe policy and law) into mitigation/control of the technology. It would be used certainly as misinformation to legitimize an egregious act that succeeds and leaves everyone dumbfounded for X amount time necessary for whatever the egregious act is to succeed. Or there could be small scale, minor alterations of speech that disrupt automated systems meant to scour the internet for such-and-such person talking about such-and-such thing. Deep faking CEOs, quarterly reviews, etc.
But, alas, yes, even without deepfakes, society is susceptible to reality distortion.
I don't know which is better. It's very hard for me to imagine the world where nobody believes such things. Will we continue to have a third of US society believing in an alternate reality? Will people start signing every statement cryptographically, so that nobody can put fake words in their mouths? Will the need to track the reputations of news providers (rather than taking the videos they provide at face value) render spewers of nonsense less influential?