formulating probable forecasts formulating definitive estimations aggregating definitive estimations predicting precise insights crowdsourcing calibrated futures mapping the future formulating predictive futures exploring contingent futures modeling critical predictions exploring predictive contingencies generating critical wisdom predicting predictive estimations aggregating intelligent wisdom mapping calibrated insights

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Will a "Deepfake" video about a national U.S. political candidate running for office in 2018 get 2M+ views?

We live in wild times. Last year, the Metaculus community debated whether we'd witness "a wide-scale hoax be created using video-alteration technology to put words in a famous figure's mouth."

Unsurprisingly, we were ahead of the game.

2018 has already witnessed massive progress in the field of AI, and comedian Jordan Peele recently posted this fake (but impressively real-seeming) video of President Obama addressing the nation about the dangers of fake political views. The fake Obama signed off by warning Americans to "stay woke, b****es!"

In light of all this, Tim Hwang, director of MIT's Media Lab, posed a bet among colleagues in the field: "[will] someone... create a so-called Deepfake video about a political candidate that receives more than 2 million views before getting debunked by the end of 2018?"

The bet has attracted more than a dozen experts from both technology and social science backgrounds, with Hwang acting as the bookie. Many involved in the wager seem to fall into the “no” camp think Deepfake videos will not make a huge splash during the campaign season for the 2018 U.S. midterm elections. But more agree that the technology could become more problematic by the next U.S. presidential election in 2020.

The boffins may be skeptical, but what do you think?

Will a Deepfake video, qualifying per Hwang's criteria, throw the electorate for a loop during the midterm elections?

Resolution will be decides by the resolution of Hwang's bet, resolving positive if per the article Manhattans are consumed, negative if tropical tiki drinks are, and ambiguous if the bet is not settled by March 2019. (Just in case of delay or the obstacles in consumption of drinks, a credible media report that the bet is settled will also do.)

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.