5 ms·

With the current state of the art, I'm more worried about generative methods being used to make the fake news problem infinitely worse, because now we can make

With the current state of the art, I'm more worried about generative methods being used to make the fake news problem infinitely worse, because now we can make convincing fake images, video, and sound bites. That is, I'm much more worried about deliberate misuse of algorithms and data, which can be done now, or in the very near future, and which regulation may not really help with. We should be less concerned about the singularity, and more concerned about the first time machine-generated audio or video clip is used to "prove" misbehavior, or exonerate someone who should be in jail. With the quality that we're starting to see [1], those who can through a few hundred thousand $$ at the right people are going to be the first to exploit it. Will we know when it happens? Has it happened already? [1]: https://boingboing.net/2017/07/17/fake-obama-speech-is-the-begin.html https://boingboing.net/2017/07/17/fake-obama-speech-is-the-b...

navait 9y ago
Would libel/slander laws cover making fake videos of a real person saying things they didn't? Even if they did, I don't know if they would cover creating fake news if it didn't say anything untrue about a specific person.
- geuis 9y ago
  Not a lawyer or even close, but I'd argue that from a layman understanding of libel law it should apply. Stating something publically that some actually did or said isn't libel. Making something up and saying someone said it already falls under libel.
- eloisius 9y ago
  That doesn't help for damage already done. Imagine our culture of political leaks right now, and then consider that leaked information could be real or synthesized and there's no way to tell the difference. Generate a few images of a politician in a compromising situation with a minor and accompanying synthesized "hot mic" recordings. It's a recipe for interesting campaign seasons at the very least.
  - radarsat1 9y ago
    Thanks, that's exactly what I mean. It's a scary thought, and one that that "fake Obama" video work I linked to really triggered for me. I mean, I enjoy working with machine learning and think it's a fascinating subject, but that work really gave me pause for thought about the ethics of what we are doing.
- jcranmer 9y ago
  The precise definition of defamation tends to be along the lines of "false statement of fact", "maliciously made", and "damaging to the reputation" (exact definition will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but these are the universal elements). Creating a video faking someone's statement of opinions would almost certainly qualify all the elements of defamation.
cgmg 9y ago
You raise a good point. Perhaps digital signatures will become more common because of this.

navait 9y ago

Would libel/slander laws cover making fake videos of a real person saying things they didn't? Even if they did, I don't know if they would cover creating fake news if it didn't say anything untrue about a specific person.

geuis 9y ago
Not a lawyer or even close, but I'd argue that from a layman understanding of libel law it should apply. Stating something publically that some actually did or said isn't libel. Making something up and saying someone said it already falls under libel.
eloisius 9y ago
That doesn't help for damage already done. Imagine our culture of political leaks right now, and then consider that leaked information could be real or synthesized and there's no way to tell the difference. Generate a few images of a politician in a compromising situation with a minor and accompanying synthesized "hot mic" recordings. It's a recipe for interesting campaign seasons at the very least.
- radarsat1 9y ago
  Thanks, that's exactly what I mean. It's a scary thought, and one that that "fake Obama" video work I linked to really triggered for me. I mean, I enjoy working with machine learning and think it's a fascinating subject, but that work really gave me pause for thought about the ethics of what we are doing.
jcranmer 9y ago
The precise definition of defamation tends to be along the lines of "false statement of fact", "maliciously made", and "damaging to the reputation" (exact definition will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but these are the universal elements). Creating a video faking someone's statement of opinions would almost certainly qualify all the elements of defamation.

cgmg 9y ago

You raise a good point. Perhaps digital signatures will become more common because of this.