It’s more meta fake (presentational deceit) than fake (factual deceit).

Is it fake when a pol speaks token sentences to an audience in a language the pol is very limited in?

Is it unfair if a multilingual pol has command of many languages vs one who doesn’t have such command?

What is an even field? Natural ability, happenstance of wealth (opportunity to learn) or happenstance of exposure (and natural learning).

Here are 3 videos - one original and 2 fake: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMqreF-0f3RhdfD6f7gO4dQ

I voted you up since I want examples but Hindi and Urdu and South Asian languages can be written in Arabic script, but they are not in fact Arabic. The former regardless of writing systems are linguistically way closer to English.

Thank you. I was just trying to say that I am accepting of deep fakes that aren't in English. Maybe that would have been more clear.

If these exist, I think it is important to show them and track how they are being used. Hopefully it can help us avoid similar pitfalls in the future by learning how they are used.

Nobody said they were.

That is not a deep fake. That is like saying a modified Trump video speaking Spanish to appeal to Latino voters is a deep fake.

That would be false information- if someone cannot do something, and doctored video is trying to cover for that weakness, then the video is faking it.

Ergo, it is fake. Overdubbing a person's voice? Questionable.

Making someone look like they're speaking a language they don't know? That's faking it.

Using AI to help out with your fakery? That's deep down the rabbit hole

Deepfake is the technology, not the intention. All those videos where someone replaces everyone in a movie scene with Nicholas Cage, or whatever, are deepfakes even though they're not intended to fool anyone.

I don't think you meant to reply to me. Because I'm asking for examples of these deep fakes...