4 ms·

This might be an outlier, but I think the benefit of completely outlawing deepfakes is worth the "but freedom!" harm. I think deepfakes have the power to do mu

by finnh 4y ago

This might be an outlier, but I think the benefit of completely outlawing deepfakes is worth the "but freedom!" harm. I think deepfakes have the power to do much more real, immediate damage to society vs the "threat" of AGI

bdowling 4y ago
Appropriation of name or likeness is already a tort that defendants can be held civilly liable for. Would you also make it a crime?
- finnh 4y ago
  Civil liability is nothing. We need police resources to find creators, not civil subpoenas of YouTubr upload IPs. Otherwise every election will be swamped with unattributable deepfake videos, which is doubtless the direction we are headed.
mixedCase 4y ago
I don't see them challenging the veracity of media any more than photoshop and video editing already do, specially since ML can be used to automatically detect tampering. So, what's the damage to society you fear?
- finnh 4y ago
  The inability to take video evidence as being at all related to truth. Presidential candidates saying "I never said that, that video is a deepfake". If deepfakes are normalized enough, then people will always have sufficient reason to disbelieve actually-true video if they don't want to believe it. If the production and dissemination of deepfakes were criminal, it (a) wouldn't be normalized, and (b) people would think twice about making deepfake videos if punishments were criminal rather than civil slaps-on-the-wrist like libel is. And criminal means actual police resources dedicated to finding creators, whereas a libel suit has only the power of subpoena.
  - mixedCase 4y ago
    People have been able to do this via video editing and audio manipulation for a while now and much better at that than state of the art deepfakes, and yet this isn't a problem despite the huge incentives you imply that would motivate very powerful, wealthy groups with the means to easily pull it off. Video evidence is still a thing, too. Criminalizing making fake videos of any kind is extreme authoritarian behavior and libel is already punished by law everywhere I know. If you don't like how libel is punished in your jurisdiction that is another matter, but if you want to get some ideas on how to make them harsher just get a list of countries and filter by dictatorships and you're bound to find examples that take libel and its definition very seriously.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    > The inability to take video evidence as being at all related to truth. That has been true for 38 of the past 40 centuries. Somehow I suspect making it 39 out of 41 won't be that big of a problem, especially compared to getting people to not take video evidence as being at all related to truth. (Edit: in case it wasn't obvious: you can't take video evidence as being at all related to truth if you don't have any video evidence to so take.)
aszantu 4y ago
I think, the kids got this, they will learn how to live with this and adapt to it. But yes, the older generation who still depend on what they see on the internet, will suffer for a while
ilaksh 4y ago
What we need are digital identify verification strategies for content, such as associating cryptographic signatures with videos.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
How would you go about banning it? Restrict the general availability of capable hardware?

by finnh 4y ago

bdowling 4y ago

Appropriation of name or likeness is already a tort that defendants can be held civilly liable for. Would you also make it a crime?

finnh 4y ago
Civil liability is nothing. We need police resources to find creators, not civil subpoenas of YouTubr upload IPs. Otherwise every election will be swamped with unattributable deepfake videos, which is doubtless the direction we are headed.

mixedCase 4y ago

I don't see them challenging the veracity of media any more than photoshop and video editing already do, specially since ML can be used to automatically detect tampering. So, what's the damage to society you fear?

finnh 4y ago
The inability to take video evidence as being at all related to truth. Presidential candidates saying "I never said that, that video is a deepfake". If deepfakes are normalized enough, then people will always have sufficient reason to disbelieve actually-true video if they don't want to believe it. If the production and dissemination of deepfakes were criminal, it (a) wouldn't be normalized, and (b) people would think twice about making deepfake videos if punishments were criminal rather than civil slaps-on-the-wrist like libel is. And criminal means actual police resources dedicated to finding creators, whereas a libel suit has only the power of subpoena.
- mixedCase 4y ago
  People have been able to do this via video editing and audio manipulation for a while now and much better at that than state of the art deepfakes, and yet this isn't a problem despite the huge incentives you imply that would motivate very powerful, wealthy groups with the means to easily pull it off. Video evidence is still a thing, too. Criminalizing making fake videos of any kind is extreme authoritarian behavior and libel is already punished by law everywhere I know. If you don't like how libel is punished in your jurisdiction that is another matter, but if you want to get some ideas on how to make them harsher just get a list of countries and filter by dictatorships and you're bound to find examples that take libel and its definition very seriously.
- a1369209993 4y ago
  > The inability to take video evidence as being at all related to truth. That has been true for 38 of the past 40 centuries. Somehow I suspect making it 39 out of 41 won't be that big of a problem, especially compared to getting people to not take video evidence as being at all related to truth. (Edit: in case it wasn't obvious: you can't take video evidence as being at all related to truth if you don't have any video evidence to so take.)

aszantu 4y ago

I think, the kids got this, they will learn how to live with this and adapt to it. But yes, the older generation who still depend on what they see on the internet, will suffer for a while

ilaksh 4y ago

What we need are digital identify verification strategies for content, such as associating cryptographic signatures with videos.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

How would you go about banning it? Restrict the general availability of capable hardware?