5 ms·

I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in

I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. In any case there shouldn’t be any difference I would imagine. There’s already precedent in United States, but circumstances matter.

Ferret7446 3y ago
Bomb ownership is okay AFAIK. Intent to commit murder/terrorism/etc is not. You'd have to convince the police/jury though.
arp242 3y ago
> I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly. When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc. Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: \ Õ / \ | / | ----D <-----O / \ /| \ / \ / | \ You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake porn as it doesn't look anything like them, and it's just a bunch of stick figures", but what exactly does it mean for something to be a "deepfake"? Is at some point a painting realistic enough to be a "deepfake"? Is using a look-a-like okay? Where are the limits, exactly? What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures?
- tyg13 3y ago
  > What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures? Level of realism?
  - theshrike79 3y ago
    But what amount of realism is accepted? If the result is still in the uncanny valley, is it OK? How far can we dig out of the valley before it becomes not OK?
- qwery 3y ago
  It you're asking seriously, no, a painting shouldn't ever be a called a deepfake. A photorealistic painting is called a photorealistic painting. The term deepfake refers to a type of thing, it's not a metric of some quality of an image, nor is it a reference point within such a metric. A deepfake is a deepfake because it is a synthetic ("fake") image that depicts a real person/thing and is the output of a program that utilises deep learning.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake Its not deepfake at all, much less very good deepfake. “Deepfake” has a meaning, and its not the same as just “fake”.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  Obviously your example is at an extremely low resolution but there’s a good argument that making erotic art of someone without their permission should be illegal. It’s obviously not as bad as a deepfake but it’s still a pretty bad thing to do and there’s a good argument that it’s harmful enough it should be legally stopped from happening. In countries without freedom of speech laws I can 100% see this being the case but in the US there’s an argument that there’s a line between a person’s right to make creepy harrasive sexual art of someone else without their permission as it’s technically free speech and the point where that causes enough harm that they are causing harm and freedom of speech protections no longer apply.

Ferret7446 3y ago

Bomb ownership is okay AFAIK. Intent to commit murder/terrorism/etc is not. You'd have to convince the police/jury though.

arp242 3y ago

> I don’t know why people ask these kinds of questions. It’s like saying bomb ownership is ok because firecrackers can be bought. Clearly there’s a difference in scale. Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly. When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc. Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: \ Õ / \ | / | ----D <-----O / \ /| \ / \ / | \ You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake porn as it doesn't look anything like them, and it's just a bunch of stick figures", but what exactly does it mean for something to be a "deepfake"? Is at some point a painting realistic enough to be a "deepfake"? Is using a look-a-like okay? Where are the limits, exactly? What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures?

tyg13 3y ago
> What exactly makes a "real" deepfake worse than my stick figures? Level of realism?
- theshrike79 3y ago
  But what amount of realism is accepted? If the result is still in the uncanny valley, is it OK? How far can we dig out of the valley before it becomes not OK?
qwery 3y ago
It you're asking seriously, no, a painting shouldn't ever be a called a deepfake. A photorealistic painting is called a photorealistic painting. The term deepfake refers to a type of thing, it's not a metric of some quality of an image, nor is it a reference point within such a metric. A deepfake is a deepfake because it is a synthetic ("fake") image that depicts a real person/thing and is the output of a program that utilises deep learning.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> You could say "well, that's not very good deepfake Its not deepfake at all, much less very good deepfake. “Deepfake” has a meaning, and its not the same as just “fake”.
Shawnj2 3y ago
Obviously your example is at an extremely low resolution but there’s a good argument that making erotic art of someone without their permission should be illegal. It’s obviously not as bad as a deepfake but it’s still a pretty bad thing to do and there’s a good argument that it’s harmful enough it should be legally stopped from happening. In countries without freedom of speech laws I can 100% see this being the case but in the US there’s an argument that there’s a line between a person’s right to make creepy harrasive sexual art of someone else without their permission as it’s technically free speech and the point where that causes enough harm that they are causing harm and freedom of speech protections no longer apply.