Oregon's statewide Open Oregon Educational Resources program promotes textbook affordability through open educational resources (OER). It convenes stakeholders, provides professional development for faculty, and supports policies around OER adoption. Evaluation shows the program has significantly reduced costs for students - the average estimated materials cost for an Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer degree dropped 18% from 2017-2019. While the program has been successful, barriers around time and funding remain; recommendations include expanding equity-focused faculty training and targeted OER development in high-enrollment fields.

1. Technical report writing _deepfake
writing multi-part question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.
Technical Report
See the assignment rubric for more details.
The report you submit to this assignment on Sunday, March 5 should include at least some
of the front material that is clearly directed toward *one* specific audience:
Progress Memo -- where you are at in the process (one solid paragraph)
Abstract (2-3 sentences) and Executive Summary (1-page overview)
Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables (optional -- encouraged if you have multiple; otherwise list in
table of contents)
The report should also include *some* material/notes that might include:
Introduction: Clearly states the purpose and contents of the report.
Body: Three sections corresponding to the sections described on the Technical Report
Planning handout.
Conclusion
Your draft report should also have:
At least one table, chart, or graph: Must be created by you. Should have a title and be
referenced in the surrounding text.
Requirements: meet all requirement, total at least 1200 words
1 1 HOUSE BILL 2213: OER Coordinator, Grants and Program Support Photo CC-
BY Heather White, Library Technical Services & OER Coordinator, Mt Hood Community
College Library
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 BACKGROUND 4 CURRENT STATUS OF
OREGON’S OER PROGRAM 4 Convening Stakeholders 4 Professional Development 4 Policy
Support 5 CALCULATION OF MONEYS CURRENT AND FUTURE STUDENTS SAVED OR WILL
SAVE AS A RESULT OF OREGON’S OER PROGRAM 6 Savings from Current OER Grant
Program 6 Savings from Past OER Grant Programs 7 Savings from Past Professional
Development Programs 8 Research Reports on Effectiveness of Statewide OER Program 9
EVALUATION OF BARRIERS PREVENTING THE ADOPTION OF FURTHER OER MATERIALS
10 Professional Development for Equity & Open Education 10 Targeted OER Development
11 Instructional Design 11
3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Oregon’s statewide OER program is named Open Oregon

2. Educational Resources. It is aligned with the HECC’s strategic goal for affordability. More
information is available at https://openoregon.org/. Open Oregon Educational Resources
promotes textbook affordability for community college and university students, and
facilitates widespread adoption of open, low-cost, high-quality materials. This mission is
carried out in the following ways: ¥ Convening stakeholders: Oregon is a national leader in
open education because of our well-developed community of practice around OER
development and implementation. ¥ Professional development: Open Oregon Educational
Resources regularly offers professional development opportunities for faculty to learn
about OER. ¥ Policy support: Open Oregon Educational Resources works with each
community college and university to implement legislative requirements and assess their
impacts. Program assessment shows that Oregon’s statewide investment in textbook
affordability has a measurable impact that is helping to make higher education more
affordable. For example, the current grant cohort supports 71 projects at 18 institutions for
a total cost of $470,392. To date, 12,496 students are estimated to have saved $1,562,092 as
a result of this funding, approximately $3.32 in student savings per $1 spent. Open Oregon
Educational Resources is on a two-year data collection cycle and will work with OER point
people at all 24 institutions to gather data from the 19-21 biennium to determine the
ongoing impact of statewide OER spending since 2015. Retrospective student savings data
collected in 2019 shows that: ¥ From 2015-2019, Oregon funded $1,153,337 in OER grants,
resulting in an estimated student savings of $7,440,911 during that time period,
approximately $6.45 in student savings per $1 spent. ¥ From 2017-19, courses with the
no-cost/low-cost designation in the schedule at 19 institutions are estimated to have saved
over 375,000 students (by headcount) in 21,000 course sections approximately $34 million
in two academic years. ¥ The average estimated materials cost for the two-year Associate of
Arts Oregon Transfer (AAOT) degree in 2019 was $1,492, an 18% drop since 2017 and a
30% drop since 2015. The barriers preventing more widespread adoption of OER materials
are the usual ones: time and money. The recommendations below suggest three targeted
areas in which to grow capacity to meet demand: 1. Expand offerings of Statewide Equity &
Open Education Faculty Cohort Model. 2. Fund targeted development of pathway materials
for Criminal Justice and Human Development/Family Studies. 3. Hire Statewide Open
Education Instructional Designer to develop engaging, interactive and effective openly
licensed courses and curricula that address various learning styles and are accessible to all
students.
4 BACKGROUND On behalf of the Oregon Community College Distance Learning
Association (OCCDLA), Linn-Benton Community College (LBCC) hired an Open Educational
Resources (OER) Librarian who started work on January 4, 2015. This position was funded
solely by Community College Support Funds for Distance Learning through the Higher
Education Coordinating Commission’s Office of Community Colleges and Workforce
Development (CCWD) through June 30, 2017. With the passage of HB 2729 (2017), the
Higher Education Coordinating Commission (HECC) contracted with LBCC in order for the
OER Librarian to implement an OER program in Oregon’s colleges and universities. HB 2213
(2019) continued this arrangement. Continued investment from the Community College
Support Fund for Distance Learning has enabled the OER Librarian to continue to offer

3. grants specifically for community college faculty. Oregon’s statewide OER program is
named Open Oregon Educational Resources. It is aligned with the HECC’s strategic goal for
affordability. More information is available at https://openoregon.org/. CURRENT STATUS
OF OREGON’S OER PROGRAM Open Oregon Educational Resources promotes textbook
affordability for community college and university students, and facilitates widespread
adoption of open, low-cost, high-quality materials. CONVENING STAKEHOLDERS Oregon is
a national leader in open education because of our well-developed community of practice
around OER development and implementation. Oregon’s community colleges and
universities each have an OER point person in place to facilitate communication. The OER
Librarian connects with affinity groups representing librarians, distance learning,
bookstore managers, academic disciplines, and students. The statewide OER program
reaches faculty through incentivized professional development opportunities (see below).
Oregon’s Statewide OER Steering Committee was established in 2015 and meets twice each
year. During the current biennium, the Statewide OER Steering Committee developed the
Open Oregon Educational Resources Vision Statement; recommended updates to the
openoregon.org website to highlight open ancillaries and zero-textbook-cost degree
options; and explored connections with OER efforts underway for K-12 in ODE. Informal
opportunities to participate include a monthly drop-in meeting for OER point people and an
Oregon OER listserv. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Open Oregon Educational Resources
regularly offers professional development opportunities for faculty to learn about OER. ¥
The OER Review Workshop model has two parts: a faculty workshop presenting open
textbooks as a way to solve the problem of high textbook prices, followed by the
opportunity for faculty to earn a
5 $200-$300 stipend to write a review of an OER that they might adopt for a course.
During the 2019-21 biennium to date, Open Oregon Educational Resources has offered 16
in-person OER Review workshops at 11 institutions, and 21 virtual OER review workshops
representing all 24 institutions, attended by a total of 398 faculty, 242 of whom have
written OER reviews. ¥ The OER Course Redesign Training Sprint model offers a $750
stipend to faculty who redesign a course using OER during Open Education Week. 61 faculty
at 12 institutions participated in the 2020 Sprint; 54 sprinters redesigned their courses to
utilize OER. The 2021 Sprint takes place March 1-5. ¥ The Equity & Open Education Faculty
Cohort model was created by library faculty member Jen Klaudinyi at Portland Community
College. The core of the course is a four-week exploration of open pedagogy, universal
design, and culturally responsive teaching. Optionally, faculty may continue the course for
another four weeks and redesign a course component, incorporating open and equitable
materials and/or pedagogy. From the Summer 2020 cohort, 48 faculty from 11 institutions
completed Part 1, and 20 of those faculty opted to complete Part 2. The Winter 2021 cohort
begins February 1. Open Oregon Educational Resources hosts statewide events for all
stakeholders, including programming during Open Education Week each year. In Spring
2019, Open Oregon Educational Resources invited individuals and planning teams from
Oregon’s public community colleges and universities to attend a one-day hands-on retreat
in support of the textbook affordability plan requirement in HB 2213 (2019). Oregon’s
Virtual Statewide OER Symposium will take place on May 14, 2021, and will showcase

4. successes achieved during a difficult year. Open Oregon Educational Resources also
provides ongoing support via the openoregon.org website. In-depth topics are covered in
archived webinars, advice columns, and research reports. Faculty and staff who prefer a do-
it-yourself approach can explore the OER FAQ to find answers to frequently asked
questions. These web-based resources are also used to field reference questions and to
highlight Oregon efforts nationally. POLICY SUPPORT Open Oregon Educational Resources
works with each community college and university to implement legislative requirements
and assess their impacts. All 24 of Oregon’s colleges and universities have begun sharing
course materials cost information with students via their course schedules per HB 2871
(2015); two institutions have partially implemented the designation and two institutions
had a designation and then put their implementation on hold while switching student
information systems. At least 15 institutions have a textbook affordability plan in progress
per HB 2213 (2019) and at least three plans are complete (more information). HB 2919,
introduced for the 2021 session by Representatives Reardon and Sollman, sets targets for
on-time course materials adoption reporting so that students can plan their budgets in
advance.
6 CALCULATION OF MONEYS CURRENT AND FUTURE STUDENTS SAVED OR WILL SAVE
AS A RESULT OF OREGON’S OER PROGRAM SAVINGS FROM CURRENT OER GRANT
PROGRAM The OER grant program has two funding sources. Legislative funding is awarded
to both community college and university faculty to redesign their courses using OER.
CCWD funding is awarded to community college faculty only, both for general course
redesign proposals, and also for courses specifically identified as belonging to Major
Transfer Map pathways. Grants are awarded at different levels depending on the complexity
of the proposed project, from adopting an existing open textbook or open course content as-
is, to creating a substantially new open textbook or open course where it is possible to
demonstrate that quality resources are not currently available to meet learning objectives.
The current grant cohort supports 71 projects at 18 institutions for a total cost of $470,392.
To date, 12,496 students are estimated to have saved $1,562,092 as a result of this funding,
approximately $3.32 in student savings per $1 spent. Student savings are expected to
increase to over $2M by the end of the biennium. Current OER Grant Awards Per Institution
Institution Number of Grant Projects Funds Awarded Students Impacted Student Savings to
Date Student Savings Per $1 Spent Blue Mountain Community College 7 $30,918.16 553
$70,370.00 $2.28 Central Oregon Community College 3 $3,762.00 428 $71,688.00 $19.06
Chemeketa Community College 1 $17,796.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 Clackamas Community College 3
$40,566.67 183 $14,460.00 $0.36 Columbia Gorge Community College 6 $13,945.00 202
$13,050.00 $0.94 Lane Community College 2 $27,347.00 556 $78,350.00 $2.87 Linn-Benton
Community College 3 $17,472.50 28 $2,195.50 $0.13 Mt. Hood Community College 5
$36,010.00 1009 $70,053.55 $1.95 Oregon Coast Community College 1 $1,676.00 0 $0.00
$0.00 Oregon Institute of Technology 2 $10,500.00 590 $8,760.00 $0.83 Oregon State
University 1 $34,649.00 2550 $571,761.00 $16.50 Portland Community College 26
$183,861.20 6063 $623,061.75 $3.39 Southern Oregon University 1 $2,595.00 271
$28,441.45 $10.96
7 Southwestern Oregon Community College 4 $33,068.60 133 $15,765.00 $0.48 Umpqua

5. Community College 5 $13,765.40 22 $2,200.00 $0.16 Western Oregon University 1
$2,459.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 Grand Total 71 $470,391.53 12588 $1,570,156.25 $3.34
Assessment of past OER grant cohorts shows that savings from the use of OER compound
over time, as more students take the redesigned courses (see below). If the current grant
cohort sees student savings increase at a comparable rate to past cohorts, then by the end of
the 2021-23 biennium the faculty in the 2019-21 OER grant cohort will save students an
estimated $5M, approximately $11 in student savings per $1 spent. SAVINGS FROM PAST
OER GRANT PROGRAMS Open Oregon Educational Resources is on a two-year data
collection cycle and will work with point people at all 24 institutions to gather data from the
19-21 biennium to determine the ongoing impact of statewide OER spending since 2015.
The OER Librarian is preparing by reaching out to point people to remind them that this
project is coming soon, and migrating retrospective data from multiple spreadsheets into a
relational database. Prior to the current biennium’s OER grant cohort, there have been four
OER grant cohorts in Oregon since 2015. From 2015-2019, Oregon funded $1,153,337 in
OER grants, resulting in an estimated student savings of $7,440,911 during that time period,
approximately $6.45 in student savings per $1 spent. Spring 2021 data collection will
include updated analysis of continuing savings from these grant cohorts. Past OER Grant
Awards Per Institution Institution Funds Awarded Percent of Grant Funding Estimated
Student Savings to Date Estimated Student Savings Per $1 Spent Blue Mountain Community
College $149,056 12.92% $1,098,878 $7.37 Central Oregon Community College $19,560
1.70% $189,117 $9.67 Chemeketa Community College $41,690 3.61% $90,384 $2.17
Clackamas Community College $66,873 5.80% $303,656 $4.54 Clatsop Community College
$8,279 0.72% $19,593 $2.37 Columbia Gorge Community College $56,288 4.88% $280,850
$4.99 Klamath Community College $1,965 0.17% $3,240 $1.65 Lane Community College
$96,895 8.40% $442,067 $4.56 Linn-Benton Community College $80,004 6.94% $79,694
$1.00
8 Mt. Hood Community College $69,890 6.06% $1,195,084 $17.10 Oregon Coast
Community College $3,482 0.30% $8,900 $2.56 Oregon Institute of Technology $30,250
4.22% $287,297 $9.50 Oregon State University $30,000 3.65% $367,184 $12.24 Portland
Community College $273,475 23.71% $2,314,421 $8.46 Rogue Community College $8,970
0.78% $50,805 $5.66 Southern Oregon University $87,542 10.66% $197,497 $2.26
Southwestern Oregon Community College $8,886 0.77% $92,994 $10.47 Treasure Valley
Community College $29,940 2.60% $132,686 $4.43 Umpqua Community College $9,792
0.85% $47,202 $4.82 University of Oregon $30,500 3.71% $7,040 $0.23 Western Oregon
University $50,000 6.09% $232,323 $4.65 Grand Total $1,153,337 $7,440,911 $6.45 The
first OER grant program was created through HB 2871 (2015) and was administered by the
HECC rather than by Open Oregon Educational Resources. The HB 2871 grant program
saved 10,041 students an estimated total of $1,544,200.60 from 2015-2019, approximately
$4.80 in student savings per program dollar spent (more information). Also in 2015, Open
Oregon Educational Resources ran a community college faculty grant cohort funded by
CCWD. These grants saved 5,089 students an estimated total of $477,409.24 from 2015-
2019, approximately $9.64 in student savings for every program dollar spent. As an
example of the way that savings from the use of OER compound over time, measurable

6. student savings from that cohort increased sixfold from 2016-2019 (more information). The
2016-17 OER grant cohort was funded by CCWD and so funding was available to community
college faculty only. The initial round of grant funding was augmented to support additional
projects to adopt OER as-is in Winter and Spring 2017. Altogether, the 2016-17 grant cohort
saved 30,758 students an estimated total of $4,181,462.51 from 2016-2019, approximately
$14.93 in student savings for every program dollar spent (more information). The 2018-19
grant cohort began with 53 projects funded by HB 2729 (2017) and by CCWD. CCWD
funded 15 additional projects in Fall 2018 to support the Oregon Transfer Compass
program legislated by HB 2998 (2017). The 68 OER grant projects in the 2018-19 cohort
represent 19 institutions and saved nearly 8,000 Oregon students an estimated $1.2 million
in the pilot year of the program, approximately $2.50 in student savings for each $1 of grant
money spent (more information). SAVINGS FROM PAST PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS The professional development opportunities offered to faculty have a track
record of associated student savings. The OER Review Workshop model described in the
previous section was attended by 640 faculty
9 from 22 institutions from 2015-19; 407 faculty attendees wrote OER reviews after
attending the workshop. 156 faculty adopted OER as a result of taking a review workshop,
resulting in an estimated $2,383,200 in student savings from 2015-19, approximately
$19.89 in student savings per program dollar spent (more information). Likewise, the
course redesign sprint offered in 2019 was attended by 38 faculty members from 8
institutions. 34 faculty participants reported that 1523 students saved $141,274.91 from
2019-20, representing $3.93 in student savings per program dollar spent (more
information). RESEARCH REPORTS ON EFFECTIVENESS OF STATEWIDE OER PROGRAM
Other professional development programs, such as statewide events, are not tied to OER
adoption and so do not have student savings numbers directly associated with them. Their
impact can be indirectly seen in changing attitudes, innovative pedagogy, discussions with
colleagues, presentations and publications, and so on. As a proxy it is possible to measure
student savings (or cost avoidance) on course materials generally in Oregon in order to
assess the impact of the statewide OER program. Research to date shows that statewide
investment in textbook affordability has a measurable impact that is helping to make higher
education more affordable in Oregon. In 2019, 15 colleges and 4 universities, representing
nearly 90% of students in the state, provided data estimating the student savings
represented by Oregon’s no-cost/low-cost course designation for the 2017-19 biennium.
The courses with the no-cost/low-cost designation in the schedule at these institutions are
estimated to have saved over 375,000 students (by headcount) in 21,000 course sections
approximately $34 million in two academic years. At the reporting institutions,
approximately 12% of all courses were designated no-cost or low-cost (more information).
Estimated 2017-19 Student Savings in No-Cost/Low-Cost Courses Term # Designated
Sections # Students in Designated Sections Estimated Savings Total sections offered
Summer 2017 542 7,683 $693,370 9,395 Fall 2017 2,394 49,639 $4,395,484 24,912 Winter
2018 2,643 49,330 $4,310,866 24,990 Spring 2018 3,487 54,002 $5,391,992 25,255
Summer 2018 1,207 16,588 $1,890,565 14,565 Fall 2018 3,252 55,730 $5,396,223 25,216
Winter 2019 4,062 70,634 $6,038,351 25,349 Spring 2019 3,932 70,575 $5,547,480 26,036

7. Total 21,914 379,348 $34,178,056 178,815 Further, Oregon community colleges reduced
the estimated cost of course materials for transfer degrees during the four years between
2015-19. The average estimated materials cost for the two-year Associate of Arts Oregon
Transfer (AAOT) degree in 2019 was $1,492, an 18% drop since 2017 and a 30% drop since
10 2015. The 112,462 students in the 10 highest-enrolled courses statewide saved over
$1M compared to materials costs in 2017. Using the no-cost/low-cost schedule designation,
it was possible to determine that the lowest-cost pathway through the AAOT degree
requirements averages just $381 in course material costs for a two-year degree (more
information). Further research in 2021 will determine whether this trend continues, and
will enable a comparison with baseline data collected about the universities in 2019 (more
information). EVALUATION OF BARRIERS PREVENTING THE ADOPTION OF FURTHER
OER MATERIALS The barriers preventing more widespread adoption of OER materials are
the usual ones: time and money. The recommendations below suggest three targeted areas
in which to grow capacity to meet demand. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR EQUITY &
OPEN EDUCATION External funding from the Hewlett Foundation enabled Open Oregon
Educational Resources to develop a statewide Equity & Open Education Faculty Cohort
Model. This professional development course was created by library faculty member Jen
Klaudinyi at Portland Community College. The Hewlett grant will cover costs for four faculty
cohorts: Summer 20, Winter 21, Summer 21, and Winter 22. Each faculty cohort costs an
estimated $40,000 per 60 seats. Open Oregon Educational Resources recommends
allocating $80,000 in order to run Summer 22 and Winter 23 cohorts during Year 2 of the
2021-23 biennium. This funding will provide continuity to a popular program (nearly twice
as many faculty register for each cohort as available seats) that advances access and equity
goals shared by every community college and university in the state. $- $500 $1,000
$1,500 $2,000 $2,500AAOTASOT-BUSLowest Cost AAOTAverage Course Materials
Costs2015 Average2017 Average2019 Average
11 TARGETED OER DEVELOPMENT The HECC’s House Bill 2998 Report identifies the top
20 majors in Oregon with both high workforce demand and high enrollment. Further
analysis of this list of majors shows that Criminal Justice (CJ) and Human
Development/Family Studies (HDFS) have positive employment projections; offer career
opportunities at multiple levels of credential, including certificates, associate’s degree, and
bachelor's degree; and lack high-quality OER for faculty to choose from. Faculty have
identified four CJ and five HDFS courses within disciplinary pathways in which to develop
not only open textbooks but also openly licensed ancillary materials in order to share
complete, accessible curricula with an EDI approach. Open Oregon Educational Resources
recommends allocating $87,000 for targeted development of identified pathway materials
for CJ, and $105,000 for targeted development of identified pathway materials for HDFS.
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN A Statewide Open Education Instructional Designer would
collaborate with faculty to develop engaging, interactive and effective openly licensed
courses and ancillaries that address various learning styles and are accessible to all
students. They would provide statewide leadership on best practices for assessment,
instructional technologies, and open educational practices. This position would be
especially relied on at the institutions that do not have resources to support an instructional

8. design position. Project funds will support recommendations on purchase or creation of
new platforms, tools, and processes to enhance open educational practices, open source
learning environments, and sharing open educational resources. Open Oregon Educational
Resources recommends allocating $280,000 in personnel costs for the Statewide Open
Education Instructional Designer salary and benefits, and reclassification of the existing
Statewide OER Librarian position. The Statewide Open Education Instructional Designer
project fund is recommended at $100,000.
12
Jiangshan Zhang
WR320
Introduction with Literature Review
Overview:
The recent revolution in generative models has brought us the looming danger of
deepfakes, which can deliver ever-increasingly realistic levels of manipulated images and
videos. Even more worrying, while in the past video forgery was associated with a slow,
painstaking process usually reserved for experts, currently the manipulation techniques
associated with deepfakes have been streamlined to the point that basically everyone who
intends to manipulate reality can use. Recent studies have focus on how to detect Deepfake
and its negative impact to our society. Recently there been growing interest in human
perception and virtual reality and scientists are trying to consider how Deepfake
technologies has change human perception and virtual reality. My research will focus on
finding easier ways to help detect Deepfake for at home and to create a more refined picture
of Deepfake from a positive scale that connected with human perception and virtual reality.
Introduction with Literature review
Deepfakes pose an imminent security threat to us all, and to date, deepfakes have been
able to mislead facial recognition systems as well as humans. Recent advances in deep
learning and neural network architectures, especially generative adversarial networks and
diffusion models to generate ultra-realistic fake digital content without any human
intervention further erode trust in digital media. A central issue in Deepfake is that these
technologies become easier to acquire and use, the dissemination of deepfake content
across trusted media platforms has the potential to undermine national security and erode
public trust in democracy, among other nefarious impacts. Gary Peters (2022) in his
“Deepfake Task Force Art Report” states that governments need to improve the detection of
deepfakes, policy changes to reduce the proliferation of deepfakes online, models for public-
private partnerships to fight disinformation, and metrics to determine the success of
technologies at reducing the proliferation of deepfakes. Similarly, Schick Nina (2020) in her
book “Deepfakes: the coming infocalyps”, she gives Obama Youtube videos as a warning for
these potential negative use cases of synthetic media and she concerns the dangerous
political consequences of deepfake, including implications for national security and public
trust in politics and shows worry that deepfakes will be used to intimidate and suppress,
retaliate and defraud, and how unprepared governments and tech companies are for what's
to come.
Various easy-to-use tools are available to generate deepfakes as creative content, but

9. unfortunately, this powerful technology is also used for malicious purposes: spreading fake
news and malicious hoaxes, tarnishing the image of famous people, celebrities, especially, in
sex industry. Graham Meikle (2022) explains how to make and use deepfakes. From
celebrity pornography and political satire to movie mashups and disinformation campaigns,
the author explores themes of trust and consent as face-swapping software becomes more
common. Meikle (2022) argues that deepfake videos could shed new light on the taken-for-
granted nature of contemporary media, where our ability to remix and share content
increasingly conflicts with our ability to trust. Other studies have focused on human
deepfake detection by conducting experiments to determine whether individuals can
reliably detect deepfake content both images and videos. The upshot of these studies is that
deepfake images cannot be detected by individuals. For example, Nightingale and Farid
(2022) show that artificial intelligence (AI)-synthesized faces are indistinguishable from
real ones. Borges (2019) in his studies shows that the high degree of realism of deepfakes
and their indistinguishability from original videos and images to the unwary human mind
has led to the perception of deepfakes as a threat to human society, democracy, and public
discourse, as well as social radicalization, polarization, and conflict. However, we all focus
on think about the negative impacts of Deepfake, in fact, deepfake technologies also can use
in a positive way.
If AR/VR and DeepFakes able to work symbiotically, as they enhance each other's
perceived level of realism. Why don’t we push Deepfake technology at scale for more
positive use cases, such as education? Kalpokas(2022) has tended to focused on deepfakes
and exploring their potential and the potential for creative uses of adjacent technologies in
fields ranging from film to advertising to painting. As with any piece of technology, there are
positive uses as well. For example, deepfake technology can be used in the medical and
educational systems by creating learning tools and can also be used as an assistive function
in technology. AR/VR and DeepFakes should be able to work symbiotically, as they enhance
each other's perceived level of realism. We can push Deepfake technology at scale for more
positive use cases.
Work Citated:
Deepfake Task Force Act : Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, to Accompany S. 2559, to Establish the National
Deepfake and Digital Provenance Task Force, and for Other Purposes. Washington: U.S.
Government Publishing Office, 2022. Print.
Kalpokas, & Kalpokiene, J. (2022). Deepfakes: A Realistic Assessment of Potentials, Risks,
and Policy Regulation (1st ed. 2022.). Springer International Publishing.
Meikle, G. Deepfakes. Medford: Polity Press, 2022. Print.
Nightingale, S. J., and Farid, H. (2022). AI-synthesized faces are indistinguishable from real
faces and more trustworthy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119, 1–3.
Schick. (2020). Deepfakes: the coming infocalypse (First U.S. edition.). Twelve.
Technical Report Planning
Read through my feedback on your Proposal and Intro/Lit Review and use this planning
document to further focus your audience and decide what information to include in your
report.

10. Audience
Identify a specific group of people who can use the information in your report to take action.
Complete a brief .
Who: Managers of related high technology. Sociologists, media related employers and
employees, people at any fields that can be impacted by deepfake technology.
Background (knowledge, experience, training):
I will post an introduction and literature review so that people can have a briefly
understanding what is deepfake technology, how deepfake technology impact our society
and change people’s view and perspectives. The recent revolution in generative models has
brought us the looming danger of
deepfakes, which can deliver ever-increasingly realistic levels of manipulated images and
videos. Even more worrying, while in the past video forgery was associated with a slow,
painstaking process usually reserved for experts, currently the manipulation techniques
associated with deepfakes have been streamlined to the point that basically everyone who
intends to manipulate reality can use.
Needs and Interests:
It is necessary to learn that the impacts of deepfake to our society and how change people’s
visual reality. Recent studies have focus on how to detect Deepfake and its negative impact
to our society. Recently there been growing interest in human perception and virtual reality
and scientists are trying to consider how Deepfake technologies has change human
perception and virtual reality. My research will focus on finding easier ways to help detect.
Deepfake for at home and to create a more refined picture of Deepfake from a positive scale
that connected with human perception and virtual reality.
Anyone who is interested in technology, VR/AR or deepfake related topics can be my
audiences.
Media technology companies will need my report. Also, people who worry about deepfake
and want to build a better understanding of deepfake will need my report.
Other Relevant Demographic Characteristics:
Demographic characteristics will include all gender, ages and ethics groups of people since
deepfake is widely impacted to our society and almost everyone can access and be
influenced by deepfake technology.
Purpose
Restate the purpose/significance of your project. How do you imagine your audience using
your report?
Deepfakes pose an imminent security threat to us all, and to date, deepfakes have been
able to mislead facial recognition systems as well as humans. Recent advances in deep
learning
and neural network architectures, especially generative adversarial networks and diffusion
models to generate ultra-realistic fake digital content without any human intervention
further
erode trust in digital media. A central issue in Deepfake is that these technologies become
easier to acquire and use, the dissemination of deepfake content across trusted media
platforms has the potential to undermine national security and erode public trust in

11. democracy, among other nefarious impacts.
I would expect my audiences to use my report to better understanding the impacts of
deepfake, and I will explore how we can use deepfake technology to benefit our society and
make contribution to change our visual reality.
Content
Choose three sections to focus on from the Possible Report Sections from list below. Provide
2-3 sentences describing the content you expect the section to include based on your
preliminary research.
Section 1:
Types: So far, there are major five types of deepfakes. Including textual deepfakes,
Deepfake video, Deepfake audio, Deepfakes on social media and real-time or live deepfakes
Section 2:
Definitions: Deepfakes use deep learning artificial intelligence to replace the likeness of one
person with another in video and other digital media. There are concerns that deepfake
technology can be used to create fake news and misleading, counterfeit videos.
Section 3:
Cause/effects: Various easy-to-use tools are available to generate deepfakes as creative
content, but
unfortunately, this powerful technology is also used for malicious purposes: spreading fake
news
and malicious hoaxes, tarnishing the image of famous people, celebrities, especially, in sex
industry. Graham Meikle (2022) explains how to make and use deepfakes. From celebrity
pornography and political satire to movie mashups and disinformation campaigns, the
author
explores themes of trust and consent as face-swapping software becomes more common.
Possible Report Sections
Definitions—Define the potentially unfamiliar terms associated with the topic.
Write extended definitions if there are key terms or if they are particularly difficult to
explain.
Causes/Effects—Explain what causes are related to the topic. Explain what are the
consequences, results, or effects associated with the topic. With the renal disease topic,
what happens to people with the disease; what effects do the various treatments have?
Types—Discuss the different types or categories associated with the topic. For example, are
there different types of renal disease; are there different categories of treatment?
Historical background—Discuss relevant history related to the topic. Discuss people, events,
and past theories related to the topic.
Processes—Discuss mechanical, natural, human-controlled processes related to the topic.
Explain step by step how the process occurs. For example, what are the phases of the renal
disease cycle; what typically happens to a person with a specific form of the disease?
Descriptions—Provide information on the physical details of things related to the topic.
Provide information about size, shape, color, weight, and so on. For the engineering-
oriented report, this would mean size, power requirements, and other such details about

12. the treatment technologies.
Comparisons—Compare the topic, or some aspect of it, to something similar or something
familiar. With the renal disease example, you could compare renal disease to some other
disease; the treatment to some treatment; the functions of the kidney to something familiar
(an analogy); or even the treatment to something familiar, for example, the filter system for
a swimming pool.
Applications—Explore how some aspect of your topic can be used or applied. If it's some
new technology, what are its applications?
Advantages and disadvantages—Discuss the advantages or disadvantages of one or more
aspects of your topic. In the renal disease topic, for example, what are the advantages of one
treatment over another?
Economic considerations—Discuss the costs of one or more aspects associated with your
topic. How much does treatment for renal disease cost? How much does the equipment and
personnel cost?
Social, political, legal, ethical implications—Explore the implications or impact of your topic
or some aspect of it in relation to social, political, legal, or ethical concerns.
Problems, questions, solutions, answers—What problems or questions are there associated
with your report topic or some aspect of it? Solutions, answers—What solutions or answers
can you offer on those problems or questions raised by your topic or some aspect of it?
Planning
Review all of the components you will need to complete a report. This includes a Progress
Memo to your funder, the content sections you identify, and any additional document
design requirements (such as a table of contents, list of figures, appendices, etc.)
List the steps you need to take to find and format information in the areas you have
identified. Prioritize the steps and indicate dates and times in which you will work on them.