that <it> can be impossible to tell are not

grammar-in-use

Senior Member
Chinese
Hello everyone,

Source: Facebook, YouTube Make Changes in Fight vs. Online Manipulation
Facebook says it is banning “deepfake” videos, the false but realistic clips created with artificial intelligence and sophisticated tools, as it steps up efforts to fight online manipulation. But the policy leaves plenty of loopholes.
The social network said late Monday that it's beefing up its policies to remove videos edited or synthesized in ways that aren't apparent to the average person, and which could dupe someone into thinking the video's subject said something he or she didn't actually say.
Created by artificial intelligence or machine learning, deepfakes combine or replace content to create images that can be almost impossible to tell are not authentic.

Questions:
I would've said "... that it can be almost impossible to tell are not authentic.", i.e. by adding "it" before "can". Am I right?
As I understand it, the relative clause derives from "It can be almost impossible to tell that the images are not authentic", doesn't it?

Thanks a lot in advance!
 
  • suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    Yes. I agree with you. Although I think my real solution would be to try a different way to write this idea.
     

    grammar-in-use

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Yes. I agree with you. Although I think my real solution would be to try a different way to write this idea.
    Thank you! Then how would you write this idea differently? :)
    Here's my attempt:
    Created by artificial intelligence or machine learning, deepfakes combine or replace content to create images (that) people are almost unlikely to tell are not authentic.
    Is it acceptable?
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    Thank you! Then how would you write this idea differently? :)
    Here's my attempt:
    Created by artificial intelligence or machine learning, deepfakes combine or replace content to create images (that) people are almost unlikely to tell are not authentic.
    Is it acceptable?
    Not quite. It's hardto get this right and I have to leave now - maybe someone else can help, if not I'll return to it later

    Sorry
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    The social network said late Monday that it's beefing up its policies to remove videos edited or synthesized in ways that aren't apparent to the average person, and which could dupe someone into thinking the video's subject said something he or she didn't actually say.
    Created by artificial intelligence or machine learning, deepfakes combine or replace content to create images that can be almost impossible to tell are not authentic.
    Here's my attempt:
    Created by artificial intelligence or machine learning, deepfakes combine or replace content to create images (that) people are almost unlikely to tell are not authentic.
    Is it acceptable?

    Created by artificial intelligence or machine learning, deepfakes combine or replace content to create images which are indistinguishable from authentic material.

    That's one effort - there might be other ways, but that's my best shot so far!
     

    grammar-in-use

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Created by artificial intelligence or machine learning, deepfakes combine or replace content to create images which are indistinguishable from authentic material.

    That's one effort - there might be other ways, but that's my best shot so far!
    Thank you for that!
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    I assumed it might have been a transcription error, but it seems the article is not a transcript of the video. Anyway, I admit the OP sentence didn’t immediately strike me as horribly wrong, as it’s so similar to other such expressions.

    … images that can be almost impossible to tell are not authentic :thumbsdown:
    … images it can be almost impossible to tell are not authentic :thumbsup:
    But if you simplify it, the error is clear:

    … images that are impossible to tell apart :tick:
    … images that are impossible to tell are not authentic :cross:
    … images it’s impossible to tell are not authentic :tick:
     

    grammar-in-use

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    But if you simplify it, the error is clear:
    … images that are impossible to tell apart :tick:
    … images that are impossible to tell are not authentic :cross:
    … images it’s impossible to tell are not authentic :tick:
    Exactly!
    … images it can be almost impossible to tell are not authentic :thumbsup:
    Still, there's a "that" left out before "it", right? As in:
    … images (that) it can be almost impossible to tell are not authentic
    Because the relative clause comes from "it can be almost impossible to tell (that) the images are not authentic".
     

    grammar-in-use

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    No. Its antecedent is the images, which are the object of tell (as well as being the subject of are).
    Hmm...I'd say that the object of tell is the that-clause - (that) the images are not authentic, rather than "the images".
    it can be almost impossible to tell the images(👎)
    it can be almost impossible to tell (that) the images are not authentic (👍)
     

    grammar-in-use

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    But you’ve changed the construction. That’s not the one we’re talking about.
    I mean it logically. OK, let's look at another similar sentence, which is talking about the cause of iPhone 6 easily bending:

    It highlighted the "all-new dramatically thin" design of the handsets - a factor some users had speculated might be the cause of them bending.

    Likewise, there's an intentionally omitted "that" after "a factor":
    ... a factor (that) some users had speculated might be the cause of them bending.
    Do you still think that this omitted "that"(=the factor) acts as the object of "speculated"?
    As you must know, we don't normally say "speculate something", but just say "speculate on/about/as to something" or "speculate that-clause", right?
    So, here it is not that some users had speculated this factor, but that some users had speculated (that) this factor might be the cause of them bending.
     

    lingobingo

    Senior Member
    English - England
    ... a factor (that) some users had speculated might be the cause of them bending.
    Do you still think that this omitted "that"(=the factor) acts as the object of "speculated"?
    Yes. A book [that] she read…… A person [that] I know…… A factor [that] some users speculated……

    Or you could look at it as “a factor [about which] some users speculated…… Either way, what’s in brackets can be omitted.
     

    grammar-in-use

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Yes. A book [that] she read…… A person [that] I know…… A factor [that] some users speculated……
    As I see it, "A book [that] she read……" is fundamentally different from "A factor [that] some users speculated……".
    First of all, can you please add another verb-phrase after "she read" (to make it become a bigger noun phrase)? A book [that] she read was brand new or something? Please remember the whole thing "A book [that] she read……" is just a noun phrase.
    Secondly, can we say "Some users speculated a factor"? Or is it better to say "Some users speculated about a factor"?
     

    grammar-in-use

    Senior Member
    Chinese
    Or you could look at it as “a factor [about which] some users speculated…… Either way, what’s in brackets can be omitted.
    a. It highlighted the "all-new dramatically thin" design of the handsets - a factor some users had speculated might be the cause of them bending.
    OK, then let's compare these three versions:
    b. It highlighted the "all-new dramatically thin" design of the handsets - a factor that some users had speculated might be the cause of them bending.
    c. It highlighted the "all-new dramatically thin" design of the handsets - a factor which some users had speculated might be the cause of them bending.
    d. It highlighted the "all-new dramatically thin" design of the handsets - a factor about which some users had speculated might be the cause of them bending.

    "d" is your version. Can we say "c"? I think "c" works fine (or even better than d).
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top