2 ms·

There's going to be a lot of these frivolous lawsuits as lawyers try to extract cash from the ignorant and gullible before people understand what deep fakes are

There's going to be a lot of these frivolous lawsuits as lawyers try to extract cash from the ignorant and gullible before people understand what deep fakes are. I only hope that the judges in these cases are technically informed enough to not set stupid case precedent.

InitialLastName 4y ago
In which world should fabricating an interview with someone be anything other than fraud and potentially libel? The stupid precedent is "you can say that anyone said anything (even damaging things to them) without facing any consequences".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  It would only be fraud if they claim it was real. But those magazines are masters in deceiving their lazy readers. They likely mentioned somewhere that it's not real, to avoid the law.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  > In which world should fabricating an interview with someone be anything other than fraud and potentially libel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
tokai 4y ago
This doesn't have anything to do with deep fakes.
- superkuh 4y ago
  [flagged]
itake 4y ago
My understanding is the article says it’s an interview with him, but it’s not an interview with him… If you’re saying that AI can represent real humans, then than is a whole can of worms that society can’t support.
deepsun 4y ago
Sounds similar to crypto-talk: "but you don't understand, it's based on blockchain". It doesn't matter what technology is used, but what action is done.
seanhunter 4y ago
This has got nothing to do with the technology. If you sell an "interview with Michael Schumacher" but it's actually your buddy in a boiler suit instead, you have probably committed a fraud. The tech here is just enabling the fraud to be more convincing.
- rchaud 4y ago
  > The tech here is just enabling the fraud to be more convincing. So it does have to do with the technology?
  - seanhunter 4y ago
    I'm saying the tech is not germane to the question of whether or not this was deceptive or illegal, the tech amplifies the effect.

InitialLastName 4y ago

In which world should fabricating an interview with someone be anything other than fraud and potentially libel? The stupid precedent is "you can say that anyone said anything (even damaging things to them) without facing any consequences".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
PurpleRamen 4y ago
It would only be fraud if they claim it was real. But those magazines are masters in deceiving their lazy readers. They likely mentioned somewhere that it's not real, to avoid the law.
bigbillheck 4y ago
> In which world should fabricating an interview with someone be anything other than fraud and potentially libel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

tokai 4y ago

This doesn't have anything to do with deep fakes.

superkuh 4y ago
[flagged]

itake 4y ago

My understanding is the article says it’s an interview with him, but it’s not an interview with him… If you’re saying that AI can represent real humans, then than is a whole can of worms that society can’t support.

deepsun 4y ago

Sounds similar to crypto-talk: "but you don't understand, it's based on blockchain". It doesn't matter what technology is used, but what action is done.

seanhunter 4y ago

This has got nothing to do with the technology. If you sell an "interview with Michael Schumacher" but it's actually your buddy in a boiler suit instead, you have probably committed a fraud. The tech here is just enabling the fraud to be more convincing.

rchaud 4y ago
> The tech here is just enabling the fraud to be more convincing. So it does have to do with the technology?
- seanhunter 4y ago
  I'm saying the tech is not germane to the question of whether or not this was deceptive or illegal, the tech amplifies the effect.