Unfortunately, it’s computer code and there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent its use. They can only punish its users, and if we know anything about prohibition, it has (at best) zero effect to dissuade potential offenders.
I sincerely hope nobody uses it to generate porn of real people without their consent. With that said, it is highly likely if not absolutely certain that bolstering authority on this issue will have disasterous effects that last for generations. It only takes a brief glance over history to see why.
We have only barely held onto our digital freedom. They are trying to strip it at turn. Now it’s “protect the kids” but we are witnessing the narrative shift in real time.
What I’m saying is don’t be surprised if using open source software carries a prison sentence in first world countries in the near future.
Porn from celebrities without consent was one of the first applications I ever saw it used for back when it was new tech.
And also adding Nicholas Cage into random movie scenes but still…
Yet, oddly enough, a disappointingly low amount of Nicholas Cage in porn.
Be the change you wish to see in the world
Gonna make one called National Pleasure
Leaving Las Penis.
The Cock.
The Unbearable Weight of Massive Wieners.
It would be just like regular porn but Nicholas Cage would also be there.
I think you’re assuming we’re discussing regulating deep fakes (the software), when really everyone is talking about regulating deep fakes (, the use of).
… This is to say, making it illegal to generate life-like images and videos of celebrities, non-celebrities, and political figures without consent is in no way this doomsday scenario you say.
Defamation and libel are illegal. You can use open-source tools to perform defamation and libel, or you can use those same tools in a way that doesn’t constitute defamation and libel.
Part of the confusion around regulation, at least in the US, is that movie studios such as Disney REALLY want to be able to use deepfakes of celebrities
It’s foolish to think you can restrict one and not the other, and it’s even more foolish to think our authoritarian governments would do that it they could
No matter how you turn it, though, AI will be disruptive to life as we know it. The question is how to handle it. No media outlets will be spared until we figure out a way of validating information.
My favourite vision is how an AI robocaller is chatting with an AI answering machine. But honestly, why have a phone at all? All your loved ones calling may just as well be deep fakes trying to scam you for money.
It is clear we need to do something to prepare, but what? As you say, the cat is already out of the bag, so how do we proceed from here? AntiAI-software in the same way we have antivirus software? Even open source self hosting wount be enough, somehow you need to validate who to trust. Even if it would be a start…
I really need a Poe’s Law check on this.
I’m shell-shocked from witnessing libertarian tech bros defending deepfake child porn, and I can longer distinguish earnest AI booster sentiment from satire.
Please give me a /s so I can sleep at night.
My original post was not sarcasm, but if it helps, let me be explicit: People producing CSAM of any kind, real or generated, need to be put through a wood chipper feet first. I would pay money to do myself.
How about this: People are allowed produce those nasty AI images, but every image must be registered and anyone viewing is also registered.
Regular counselling is mandatory for those registered
I hate that I still have to check out obvious satire to make sure it really is satire now.
The stock photo guy absolutely looks like the kinda person who would make some very… Uncomfortable deepfakes.
I would recommend not diving into these comments or else you’re gonna find the real-world equivalent of the dude this article is making fun of.
Yikes.
Or did he?!
Lots of onions eaten in this comment section.
Ethan is showin up big time in these comments. Holy shit.
Just like Trump, everything he complains about is projection.
You know what? Fuck it. I’m not even into deepfakes. If someone wants to blast rope to me getting railed by waluigi then have at it. The future is now old man.
I believe it’s a power grab. The more you regulate or force licensing costs on AI tools the harder it is to use without having large capital.
Meaning those with all the money can use AI while regular people or small companies or startups can’t.
I don’t use or frequently browse deep fakes and I don’t think they should be regulated. Governments have never regulated the internet in a way that didn’t have cascading negative effects elsewhere.
Ladies…
“Don’t you know that our plans have your interest - not ours - in mind”?
Unironically if it’s a struggle to understand why regulation of AI is far more dangerous than AI than I have a pair of boots to sell you. They go on your neck, and you’ll be the one who asks for them to go there. But don’t worry, they’ll keep you safe, and if you don’t unconditionally beleive me you are somehow wrong.
Only people who believe they’d benefit from regulating deepfakes are some high profile and/or internet narcissists.
“Boohoo someone made a video of Trump’s hemorrhoids and Biden licking them” Everyone already knows you can easily fake some video without using “AI” for it, we have a whole fucking industry for it pumping hundred movies out every Saturday. We already know you shouldn’t believe everything you see.
Goes a bit beyond that nowadays. Deep fakes can be used to create false evidence for example
Deepfakes are already being used on an industrial scale for scams and conning people.
It’s not a case of them needing regulating because they offend peoples sensibilities, it’s because they’re actively being used to harm people.
how would more regulation help? what you are talking about is already illegal
The same way cracking down on CP helps make it harder to access by pedos.
Y’all are seriously looking creepy
Good one. You want to lock people up but people who believe in the first amendment are creepy. Nice spoof of moral panic populism.
Not everyone is an American idiot
True. Freedom of speech and of the press is a peculiarly American thing. In virtually all other countries… No, wait. That’s the 2nd amendment. What were we talking about?
Good one. You want the freedom to create any porn you want regardless of who it hurts without any personal accountability.
This is a weird hill to die on but I’ve seen worse. Not really.
You don’t have to be a Hugh Hefner to reject fascism.
Yeah, fraud used to be such a fun pastime for the whole family. Now we need to regulate it. Technology ruins everything.
The past month or so I’ve started encountering quite a few deepfakes on dating sites. I honestly can’t tell they’re deepfakes just by looking; the only reason I’ve realised tell is because they were very obviously Instagram model photos. I reverse image searched them to find where they were taken from and confirm my suspicions that the profile’s using stolen photos, only to find that the original photos aren’t quite the same. It’ll be the exact same shot with the same body but a different face, and with identifying tattoos removed, moles adds, etc.
If they weren’t obvious modelling shots that made me want to reverse image search them, I wouldn’t have known at all. It makes me wonder how many deepfaked images I’ve encountered on dating sites already and just not known about because they’ve been fairly innocuous-looking photos…
thats already illegal
In a courtroom sure. What about putting it on YouTube?
That’s just disinformation, which again, already exists. 80% of political YT content is someone lying to the viewers to push their agenda. That has nothing to do with deepfakes.
So you have no issues with me distributing deepfakes of you burning crosses across your neighborhood?
I’m not saying deepfakes should not be regulated.
I’m saying the examples are poor because scamming people is already illegal.
So you aren’t actually syaing anything at all. You’re just being contrarian for the sake of it.
Not exactly. Arguments like “they should be regulated because they can be used for illegal stuff” are moot, since those usages are already regulated. I’m on the fence on the whole regulation thing and I’ve yet to see any actual realistic examples on how regulation would look.
Is it even logical to regulate ai images specifically, or should we lump it in together with any form of image manipulation?
Isn’t faking evidence already illegal in more or less every jurisdiction though?
Okay but can you tell the difference between legal real evidence and illegal false evidence?
The technology is there to create this type of false evidence, it’s not going back to the Pandora’s box anymore. The truth is that you can’t trust a single videotape as 100% evidence alone.
Oh hi Ethan
Didn’t expect him to show up and defend his own article lol
