"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, obvi

"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.