3 ms·

There's something in that text that I find worrying: "... shall disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated. This obligation shall n

There's something in that text that I find worrying: "... shall disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated. This obligation shall not apply where necessary for the purposes of safeguarding public security [and other prevailing public interests] or for the exercise of a legitimate right or freedom of a person and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties.”. Does the above mean that the powers can create deepfakes, but given certain conditions, they're not obligated to reveal their nature? There's huge room for bending these rules to disseminate fake news to attack opponents, falsely accuse innocent people of crimes or save others from crimes they have committed. These laws will be abused, that's for certain, because they look exactly like they were thought with abuse in mind.

Nasrudith 6y ago
When has that not been the case? There is no obligation to label your centurion helmet or novelty photoshop of the presidentbwalking down the white house lawn without pants as fake. The actual misdeeds themselves are the crimes like false accusations.
IanCal 6y ago
Those get-outs are pretty standard boilerplate. They're there even when it comes to human rights - as otherwise certain actions by the state would not be permitted (for example jail). > There's huge room for bending these rules to disseminate fake news to attack opponents, falsely accuse innocent people of crimes or save others from crimes they have committed I'm not sure how well that would work in court. Which is where you'd go if you think the government in your country has broken the law, isn't that the process?
jariel 6y ago
"Does the above mean that the powers can create deepfakes, but given certain conditions, they're not obligated to reveal their nature?" There's a similar, obvious loophole, in the statement from the released EU doc: "users of AI systems who use the same to generate or manipulate image, ..." Basically limiting the regulatory concern to the 'use of AI' in the process. So what if 'AI' is not used? If you create 'fakes' manually - by some non-AI process, by dubbing over a voice - that's cool then? Because if that statement were used in a legal context, then the notion of 'users of AI' seems fairly explicit. I've been downvoted into oblivion for the the very clear observation: it's nary impossible to legislate using specific technologies, especially as they are ill-defined. The issue here is not 'AI' - it's the 'misrepresentation' of individuals, and the legal precedent has nothing whatsoever to do with the means of reproduction. If you 'fake' a representation of a celeb or public figure, and the EU wants to make that illegal for whatever reason, then that's fine, but it has nothing to do with AI. The legislators are misinterpreting the nature of this new branch of computing.

Nasrudith 6y ago

When has that not been the case? There is no obligation to label your centurion helmet or novelty photoshop of the presidentbwalking down the white house lawn without pants as fake. The actual misdeeds themselves are the crimes like false accusations.

IanCal 6y ago

Those get-outs are pretty standard boilerplate. They're there even when it comes to human rights - as otherwise certain actions by the state would not be permitted (for example jail). > There's huge room for bending these rules to disseminate fake news to attack opponents, falsely accuse innocent people of crimes or save others from crimes they have committed I'm not sure how well that would work in court. Which is where you'd go if you think the government in your country has broken the law, isn't that the process?

jariel 6y ago

"Does the above mean that the powers can create deepfakes, but given certain conditions, they're not obligated to reveal their nature?" There's a similar, obvious loophole, in the statement from the released EU doc: "users of AI systems who use the same to generate or manipulate image, ..." Basically limiting the regulatory concern to the 'use of AI' in the process. So what if 'AI' is not used? If you create 'fakes' manually - by some non-AI process, by dubbing over a voice - that's cool then? Because if that statement were used in a legal context, then the notion of 'users of AI' seems fairly explicit. I've been downvoted into oblivion for the the very clear observation: it's nary impossible to legislate using specific technologies, especially as they are ill-defined. The issue here is not 'AI' - it's the 'misrepresentation' of individuals, and the legal precedent has nothing whatsoever to do with the means of reproduction. If you 'fake' a representation of a celeb or public figure, and the EU wants to make that illegal for whatever reason, then that's fine, but it has nothing to do with AI. The legislators are misinterpreting the nature of this new branch of computing.