Investigating AI Manipulation in Viral Chinese Paraglider Video(blog.hyperknot.com)
blog.hyperknot.com
Investigating AI Manipulation in Viral Chinese Paraglider Video
https://blog.hyperknot.com/p/investigating-ai-manipulation-in
61 comments
I was on the side of it being fake because the part where he's frozen the background is frozen/air around him seems to be barely moving. The background I can get that it's so far away doesn't look like it's moving. The other thing is the altitude is so high/can't breath but yeah.
This seems like the first video on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QMLSLQYMPI
They sell the blue screen setup as well: https://www.yowfly.com/product/paragliding-harness-simulator...
Update: news sites have pulled the video now, confirming parts of it were AI generated.
https://deadline.com/2025/05/nbc-viral-chinese-paraglider-vi...
https://deadline.com/2025/05/nbc-viral-chinese-paraglider-vi...
Let’s not rule out virtual production techniques as that first scene of him frozen is clearly a set.
He looks like Jack Nicholson from the end of The Shining...
Whatever the outcome of this specific case, we are clearly at a tipping point in history - it’s now basically impossible to say for certain if a fake video is real, and potentially even more problematic - also impossible to say for sure that a real video is not fake.
The whole concept of ‘video evidence’ is going up in smoke.
The whole concept of ‘video evidence’ is going up in smoke.
When it comes to actual court evidence, it’s just going to come back to chain of custody. What is the source of the video, how was it obtained, what hands did it go through before reaching the court, etc.
Easier said than done, though, especially when the sources themselves can be hacked and poeple can be bribed. When you make one step of a crime MUCH easier, finding evidence becomes much harder.
The 1992 book "Rising Sun" by Michael Crichton is basically about exactly this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_Sun_(Crichton_novel)
Oooh I haven’t read this and I usually love Crichton book.
As we can see here though - newspapers and court of public opinion aren’t all that thorough!
I’m thinking back to various things like the videos of people being beaten up by the police, or that audio clip of trump talking about grabbing women.
Would any of these things carry the same weight today? And how much weight will they have by the next election?
Eve just being able to plausibly say ‘nah it’s just AI’ adds enough reasonable doubt that a lot of people will not believe it.
I’m thinking back to various things like the videos of people being beaten up by the police, or that audio clip of trump talking about grabbing women.
Would any of these things carry the same weight today? And how much weight will they have by the next election?
Eve just being able to plausibly say ‘nah it’s just AI’ adds enough reasonable doubt that a lot of people will not believe it.
Most of us on here have an acutely-tuned spidey-sense when it comes to detecting AI videos, but several times recently I've found myself completely unable to tell if a video is real or fake. The issue is: if it's real, then you can spend a ton of time trying to determine it's fake, when it's not, and still not be sure.
Either way, we're cooked.
Either way, we're cooked.
Ars Technica just did a nice article on purely generated videos and some of them look completely real to my eyes.
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/05/ai-video-just-took-a-star...
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/05/ai-video-just-took-a-star...
> The whole concept of ‘video evidence’ is going up in smoke.
are you talking legally?
not sure why that would be the case. Courts accept documents which can be forged. Doing that would be a crime.
are you talking legally?
not sure why that would be the case. Courts accept documents which can be forged. Doing that would be a crime.
When you submit a document to the court you must "lay a foundation" for it. That is, someone with personal knowledge of the document must testify under penalty of perjury about the contents being accurate and unmodified, etc.
Yeah and people forge things all the time. Which I’d imagine is quite problematic
It takes a certain degree of chutzpah to introduce those forged documents in court, though… you’re submitting them to adversarial scrutiny, it’s part of the court’s job to decide whether they’re reliable or not, and detection leads to criminal sanctions
I mean the other way around - you have to prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. What if there is some genuine footage, but there’s enough doubt that it could not be genuine
they do? how do you know this?
we need a modern 12 angry men were the main evidence is not testimony but AI video
Stabs a USB into the table And this identical footage of the judge doing the crime instead of the accused? Is this not plausible doubt?
Y'know, that sounds like a potentially viable business model for an expert witness.
Counsel comes to you with footage, you create equally-plausible false footage to highlight how the original is doubtable.
Counsel comes to you with footage, you create equally-plausible false footage to highlight how the original is doubtable.
> also impossible to say for sure that a real video is not fake.
If you recall, when Epstein was arrested and awaiting trial, the media repeated the narrative that "deep fakes" were coming out now and some videos are completely fake.
It was never said in reference to Epstein specifically. But they were two independent stories at the same time. Almost as if it were a preparation for damage control should some compromising material be released.
If you recall, when Epstein was arrested and awaiting trial, the media repeated the narrative that "deep fakes" were coming out now and some videos are completely fake.
It was never said in reference to Epstein specifically. But they were two independent stories at the same time. Almost as if it were a preparation for damage control should some compromising material be released.
[deleted]
Uhh, CGI is decades old now. Videos without sufficient provenance have always been suspect. Even beforehand you could do plenty of tomfoolery in the cutting room.
But that required lots of expertise and time to fabricate anything remotely convincing. We may now be close to an era where fakery at that level can be fabricated at industrial scale by any individuals and, most importantly, by powerful entities.
Powerful entities have always been able to hire VFX artists. Preferably fresh out of film school for 20% above industry wage and a sense of purpose. For the rest of us there's Fiverr. Some guy in Indonesia is unlikely to investigate whether he's editing part of a prank video or fabricating evidence.
Fabricating video absolutely became easier. But it's not so much about your video skills, you can buy those. It's about your organization and planning skills. Even a hilariously incompetent and unorganized entity with a lack of foresight can now fabricate reasonably convincing video
Fabricating video absolutely became easier. But it's not so much about your video skills, you can buy those. It's about your organization and planning skills. Even a hilariously incompetent and unorganized entity with a lack of foresight can now fabricate reasonably convincing video
CGI is expensive, and also quite bad at people. So I think this is a whole new thing.
[deleted](1)
mediumsmart(1)
I guess we'll have to take everything with a grain of salt from now on as any evidence can be faked with AI. I'm likely naive since I don't understand what the point of faking this was. Clout chasing? Monetizing this somehow?
Can be to validate the technology before using it for something more nefarious.
I think it's validation. Consider if you were wanting to perfect AI to be very hard to distinguish, what better way than to crowd source it by putting on social media? The fear is when it's perfect and someone puts you in the middle of a very illegal situation; prove it wasn't you.
> The fear is when it's perfect and someone puts you in the middle of a very illegal situation; prove it wasn't you.
At least in the US, while the law is followed, this is not legal, the State will have to prove it wasn't AI. They're required to assume it's not you, and prove that it is.
The system is flawed of course and I'm not saying it always plays out like this in the real world, but the more we remember and repeat the laws they are supposed to follow, I think anyway, the greater chance we can hold those in power to the laws to which they are supposed to be held
At least in the US, while the law is followed, this is not legal, the State will have to prove it wasn't AI. They're required to assume it's not you, and prove that it is.
The system is flawed of course and I'm not saying it always plays out like this in the real world, but the more we remember and repeat the laws they are supposed to follow, I think anyway, the greater chance we can hold those in power to the laws to which they are supposed to be held
Yup. Defining the overton window for emerging technologies
The article surmises it could have been created by a hand-warming mittens company.
Yeah, I think I read recently that they were going to release video proof that Epstein offed himself. The cynical part of me was thinking how convenient the timing was with how awesome video AI has become, and saddened that in general I can't really take video as proof anymore.
Imagine capturing a crime on camera. And then having the court toss this as inadmissible evidence.
Fun times ahead !
Fun times ahead !
In this case, "cloud chasing".
Ecree means most things can be accepted
I used to do paragliding and to me the video looks like low effort green screen more than AI.
The colons don't behave like that when flying because you have a tension exactly as much as your weight and it will vibrate and jiggle as it is rare to have perfect laminar flow especially over land(it gets more stable at hight altitudes but not that stable). Also, you are supposed to have 30 to 60 kph wind blowing at you all the time because that's how you stay airborn which means the handles and all kind of fiber and attachments will constantly move.
We were told stories about people who actually went to that altitude after being sucked by a cumulonimbus cloud and survived, so it's probably not impossible but this video screams fake at the second you look at it.
I'm surprised anybody bought it and I will be very surprised if it turns to be real. I find the one with the donkey much more convincing.
At least it has some wind and tension: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xqWN3h32wrA
The colons don't behave like that when flying because you have a tension exactly as much as your weight and it will vibrate and jiggle as it is rare to have perfect laminar flow especially over land(it gets more stable at hight altitudes but not that stable). Also, you are supposed to have 30 to 60 kph wind blowing at you all the time because that's how you stay airborn which means the handles and all kind of fiber and attachments will constantly move.
We were told stories about people who actually went to that altitude after being sucked by a cumulonimbus cloud and survived, so it's probably not impossible but this video screams fake at the second you look at it.
I'm surprised anybody bought it and I will be very surprised if it turns to be real. I find the one with the donkey much more convincing.
At least it has some wind and tension: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xqWN3h32wrA
Yeah, watching that first video, a million things should stand out to anyone, even if they're not a paraglider. It's really hard to believe any part of this video is real.
Sort of related, but that video feels like it might be kind of cruel to the donkey. It's hard to believe that it really enjoys flying like that (but then again maybe who knows).
This isn't true. I know donkeys who do this professionally and they rave about their air time.
Even in the short, shouldn't there be vapor visible from breathe?
where are his legs!
AI has finally reached a point at which it can fake videos well enough that most people will believe it. Just in time for the fake Epstein suicide video!
Epstein didn't kill himself, nor is he dead. He's living out his retirement on another pedo island, as a reward for a kompromate job well done.
Epstein didn't kill himself, nor is he dead. He's living out his retirement on another pedo island, as a reward for a kompromate job well done.
Based on what?
I get the conspiracy that he was killed by people with something to cover up. But what is the motivation for rewarding him?
Unless you suppose he has a very compelling dead man's switch?
I get the conspiracy that he was killed by people with something to cover up. But what is the motivation for rewarding him?
Unless you suppose he has a very compelling dead man's switch?
Based on the fact that the security cameras "weren't working" and the guards were "sleeping" at the moment he did it. When one of the highest profile criminals was in their unit. Bull crap.
Not for a second that I believe the conspiracy, but he would be rewarded for taking the blame post-mortem so a lot of other rich people don't.
Much safer and easier to have him killed, though.
(Not saying that he was, just that it seems the much more plausible theory than the reward one.)
(Not saying that he was, just that it seems the much more plausible theory than the reward one.)
We'll have to adapt to it, obviously, but I don't think it's all bad. AI can make non-real but really easy to understand video, so for something like a piece of news where you just take a peek and move on, it's actually pretty much perfect.