Women in Computer Vision 18 DAILY WACV Saturday The point is that you can develop even different strategies that are based on different artifacts and this can help a lot because maybe you can attack a specific detector, but it’s harder to attack several ones. It’s really important never to rely on one single detector but to have different strategies. Each of them trying to detect a specific artifact. Obviously, you are passionate about this subject. Is it strong enough to keep you interested for years to come? For now, yeah. It depends on what will happen in the future. Also, in terms of protection of active methods. Methods for which you can maybe protect your data using some signatures or watermarks. Of course, maybe it can change, and it can evolve in the future, but I think there will be, in any case, some space for passive detectors and for a strategist that can integrate passive detectors with active ones. What fascinates you about the subject? It’s like an investigation. You have some difficult traces you have to highlight, and this is quite challenging. It is like, “Elementary, Mr. Watson”? Yes, right. You have to find evidence. Sometimes, something looks perfect. I remember CVPR 2016 in Las Vegas when Matthias Niessner showed his Face2Face. Face2Face! Actually, I also worked with Matthias because we developed the FaceForensics++ dataset. I was in the audience when he gave that live demo for the first time. It was very, very impressive. Yeah, it was impressive. It does not happen very much that we speak with researchers from your university in our magazine. I interviewed Fanny Ficuciello once, and that is pretty much it. Do you know why that is? The main problem is, in general, probably the area of computer vision. For Fanny, it was robotics, I think. Medical robotics. Medical robotics, yes. It’s probably expanding, so maybe you will have more interviews in the future! [she laughs]
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc3NzU=