14 ms·

'No AI Fraud Act' Could Outlaw Parodies, Political Cartoons, and More

120 points by elsewhen 3y ago

Lastodon 3y ago
[flagged]
- switch007 3y ago
  Oh come on it's not that bad! It's just things which threaten their power
- logicchains 3y ago
  Because every time there's something cool and new, it could threaten the profits of large slow-moving incumbents, so the incumbents use their lobbying power to try to get bureaucrats to neuter or kill the threat.
duringmath 3y ago
[flagged]
cebert 3y ago
Are actors on SNL going to be banned next?
bigbillheck 3y ago
Reading between the lines this doesn't seem all that different than California's likeness-protection law.
Buttons840 3y ago
Maybe this is reasonable, iff it only applies to fake media that is indistinguishable from the real thing. Like, if you show a jury two videos and they can't tell which one is real and which one is fake. I can accept that there is an implied claim of realism by creating realistic media, and that would be a lie, very similar to libel.
- mattw2121 3y ago
  I understand and appreciate your point, but I would like to point out there is a large segment of society that, if shown an article from The Onion, wouldn't realize it is satire.
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    And those peoples' votes matter no less than yours. Misinformation is very dangerous in a democracy, especially when it is easier to sow than real information.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - Buttons840 3y ago
    I think it's okay for The Onion to make satirical news reports, but maybe not okay to make a realistic deep-fake of someone. An actor could dress and act like that person though.
    - criddell 3y ago
      Would this be allowed: https://www.theonion.com/frail-emaciated-mlb-players-still-a-few-weeks-away-fro-1851169390 https://www.theonion.com/frail-emaciated-mlb-players-still-a... In case you aren't a baseball fan, that's a photoshopped image of baseball player Cory Seager.
      - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
        I was maybe on Buttons side but your checkmate won me over.
    - Cheer2171 3y ago
      What about a comedian who does voice impressions that are good enough to be indistinguishable from the politician to the average person?
Buttons840 3y ago
> It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice replica" in a "manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce" if the individual agrees (in writing) to said use. Is there anything that isn't "interstate commerce"? Remember, while the court was clutching their pearls over Roe v Wade and other cases not too long ago, they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand, in which it was decided that someone growing food on their own land to feed to their own animals was "interstate commerce". My understanding is that it's important for everything to be interstate commerce because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, and so if we define interstate commerce to include everything, then the federal government can regulate everything.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >>they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand Has there been a case to challenge this recently? The current court is looking at Alot of old precedents and is poised to rollback federal power in some big ways. Before them right now is a case on Chevron Deference I am not aware of any that has been before the current current that would challenge Wickard or any of the other terrible rulings that followed Wickard. So I am not sure the statement of "they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand" is accurate.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  > It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice replica" in a "manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce" if the individual agrees (in writing) to said use. Really? So it's illegal to record my likeness with your security camera and it's illegal to use my likeness to stop me from stealing because that affects the price of goods in interstate commerce? I'm tempted to demand cops turn off their body cameras the day this goes into effect. Same of all government survillance. If I can find an honest judge, I'll freaking own the government. Who elected these idiot? Oh, right, never mind. I thought the counted my vote for a minute but obviously not.
  - 3y ago
Tanoc 3y ago
Reading through the actual law, it seems that only a few qualifiers are needed to prevent abuse. Although it seems it could be rendered toothless according to page twelve, section twelve, subsection two. The wording in that means somebody could interpret other parody laws to render enforcement basically impossible. It's also concerning that the main focus tends to be on musicians, despite listing deepfake nudes and other malicious uses of the technology as reasons for incitement of the bill.
- cogman10 3y ago
  Agreed, it starts by talking about AI and then when the actual law is written it does not use a single qualifier to identify AI. It's written in a way that almost makes me think some public figure is mad they got lampooned on SNL or some comedy sketch.
keepamovin 3y ago
Well, it was fun while it lasted. Comedy, I mean. I guess... it's OK, we'll all be 'safer' probably. At least we've still got ... clean air. But you don't need AI to do a great Trump impression. I've seen: Tyler Fischer, Shane Gillis and 'Godfrey' do good impressions. They really nail the voice. It's funny how impression-able Trump's voice is. His voice is its own character, as is his hand gestures. I guess entertainers need to evolve to have some characteristic.
- gremlinsinc 3y ago
  they should just blanket ban all impersonations, while they're at it. I feel like thought police might be closer than we think at this point.
  - hightrix 3y ago
    May as well ban all acting while they are at it. Wouldn't want someone to confuse an actor in a biopic for the real thing, would we?
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    Dude, they already have them in the UK. And Canada. Certain ideas and expressions of those ideas are outlawed based on how they spread: "misinformation" and "hate". Misinformation (ie, not knowing what you're talking about, but speculating and trying on theories), or being in the unknown, is the foundation of frontier science, which is basically the invention of ignorance. So, you're no longer allowed to think, and if you can't think, you have to be told what the truth is...So...religion I guess? Hate (ie, a wide spectrum of behaviors that is easy to allege but challenging to objectively verify and often deployed without nuance, self-awareness or impartiality) can just be subjective confirmation of existing biases. Hate could just be I don't like this person, then the accuser is like, "That's hate!", but then it's like, "Isn't it hate to accuse of that? Aren't people allowed their preferences?" These dual problems of misinfo and hate (the new heresy and blasphemy, I suppose, administrative and legalistic tools which have been deployed in the past in the service of a ruling class to suppress or control a subjugated class), are exacerbated by the pseudo-collectivist elevation of one's "group identity" to a place of primacy, where the state seems to not only suggest that group identity is more important than individual identity, but it seeks to take responsibility for the interactions at group identity level, thereby amplifying the sense of victimhood, and lack of personal responsibility, that already underpins the psychological vulnerabilities that compels people into the larger cultural conflict traps already in play. Anyway, that's my sort of literary theory, cultrual crit attempt to describe it, hahaha! :)
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
I think it would be least likely to outlaw political cartoons or parodies as those can be forms of criticism of the government, one of our most sacred rights. We don't have freedom of speech so that we can talk about the weather. With that said, isn't it already against the law to use someone's likeness, especially for commercial/political gain?
hospitalJail 3y ago
Bandaid stuff. Local models are out there, this is a situation where moral people comply with the law, but immoral people use a corporation to shield themselves.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
RecycledEle 3y ago
This reminds me of ReasonTV's playlist on Unintended Consequences on YouTube.
elif 3y ago
Sorry but you will never regulate memes. The actually harmful AI deepfakes like fake Elon and Mr beast scamming old people with fake crypto, and deepfake porn, are already illegal and still impossible to regulate. Are you going to fine Google everytime a throwaway account uploads to YouTube. Let's be realistic here, this law will only be used by celebrities hiring lawyers to attack comical parody.
- Y-bar 3y ago
  > Are you going to fine Google everytime a throwaway account uploads to YouTube. That kind of depends on Google's modus operandi, doesn't it? Like telecom network not doing enough to combat robo-calls. If Google wants to reap the profit from allowing people to upload content, they should also perhaps share a part of the responsibility of anything that happens from their own (in)actions? If Google has ha habit of taking down malicious content, then less responsibility perhaps? If Google attempts to put into place safeguards versus repeat offenders, then less responsibility again perhaps? Like if a person is speeding and causes an accident, the government could in theory share part of responsibility if the road they designed and built did not have adequate best-practice safeguards against head-on collisions. A news network could also face legal issues for lies said on it's programmes by guests and hosts regarding voting machines.
  - elif 3y ago
    Google takes every step you mentioned and has departments working on it daily. It's still just as common as it was 2 years ago.
    - Retric 3y ago
      Google makes a token effort based on the current risk v reward calculation. Increase the risks and they might actually become effective.
    - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
      Then maybe one monolithic video platform that serves the streaming needs of an audience the size of YouTube's isn't a good business plan. For decades the mantra of Silicon Valley has been "eat the world" on a given service you provide, alright, fine. Then provide it. And if you can't provide a service to billions of people without the quality of said service going into the shitter, then the suggestion I have for you is to not eat the world.
batch12 3y ago
Imagine getting something like DCMA takedowns because your voice happens to sound similar to someone famous or you look like someone else.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  Your voice or your looks are not AI.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    How do you prove that outside of a courtroom?
  - fallingknife 3y ago
    And for only $700 / hour to hire an expert witness on AI (on top of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills to get to that point), you can prove it in court!
  - jjulius 3y ago
    And a bot programmed to scan YT for anything that sounds like X person's voice isn't going to give a shit if it's literally just your voice, they'll still throw a DMCA notice at your video. Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice.
    - judge2020 3y ago
      > Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice. The automated system you're talking about is called Content ID and is "not DMCA". DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an uploader will lead to an account strike. Content ID is completely separate from any legal mandate (besides the settlement Google made with Viacom). In fact, it's even separate from Copyright entirely; YouTube is under no obligation for Content ID to operate only on copyrighted content. If YouTube was willing, they could take a paycheck from Disney to keep Steamboat Willie stuff protected by Content ID, since it's their own system and their own rules. For this reason, the process for Content ID appeals is tougher - it's in YouTube's best interest to keep videos claimed, particularly if they need to appease rights holders[0] who hold all the cards for whether or not their music is available on YouTube. If it were a DMCA notice instead, you would have a legal right to counter the DMCA notice (under fair use) and get your video reinstated, unless the rights holder tells YT they have filed suit against you. 0: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218
paganel 3y ago
That's one the main points of using AI for censorship, they'll be able to ban all that (parodies, political cartoons and more) while "blaming" AI, going by the: "it was the algorithm/computer code, not us!". In fact the whole process of outsourcing the implementation of censorship to private entities (Facebook, Alphabet etc) is part of that same shtick, and it's pretty effective in the short to medium term. Of course, in the long term it only helps bread more discontent when it comes to the system, which discontent this time around also involves private entities (just notice how trust in the privately-owned mainstream media has cratered almost everywhere in the Western world in the last ten or so years), but I guess the powers that be have stopped caring for the long-term health of the system a long time ago.
- sumtechguy 3y ago
  It is interesting if you look at the talks at davros this time they are talking about trying to put that trust back and only 'one tech mogul is not onboard'. The people with money want the gatekeepers back. The tech industry is glad to help.
seydor 3y ago
[flagged]
jncfhnb 3y ago
They reference the Tom hanks dental thing but that looked to me like it was obviously not a deepfake. This law seems vaguely ok. If the general premise of no ai replication of individual people’s physical qualities and voice without permission then sure whatever. It won’t make much of a difference though. People’s voices arnt appearances aren’t as special as we think
zug_zug 3y ago
I don't know if this is in the bill, but all (non-advertisement) parody videos etc should simply be legal on the condition if they display the word "PARODY" in the upper right in White on black font size 13 taking up no less than 5% of the video's height (or something).
- voakbasda 3y ago
  That would be “compelled speech”, which should not pass Constitutional muster. I say “should” because the courts have already taken big stinking dumps on all of our supposedly inalienable rights, so who knows how it would actually go.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  Let's do that for advertising first... (Or maybe not at all, think of the screen burn-in)
- aio2 3y ago
  people usually put disclaimers for that kind of stuff
- fallingknife 3y ago
  > I don't know if this is in the bill, but all (non-advertisement) parody videos etc should simply be legal FTFY
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  I’d agree to that as long as politicians have to wear the same label any time they speak about legislating AI, because they’re clearly so lost and out of touch it must be a parody.
dotancohen 3y ago
After considerable thought, far before this article landed, I have to agree. I have no problem with AI inventing new things. But purporting to be something else - the potential for confusion is far too great. A human parody that contains obvious clues that even those unfamiliar with the subject would recognize as not being the subject - that's fine. But a near-perfect copy of the subject of satire, that is too far. Way too far. The potential for abuse is far too great. Obviously, banning such usage will not prevent outlaws and rogue states from doing this very thing. The goal of the banning is to send a clear signal that in our society, we do not accept such things. Much like chemical weapons. It will also help contain the spread of such things in our society even if our enemies try to send it to us, like child pornography.
- oceanplexian 3y ago
  What’s your plan to enforce it? Because passing a law doesn’t magically eliminate a problem. Often times laws increase the behavior they are trying to prevent, like drug laws.
- axus 3y ago
  How about something like "Sassy Justice", where the image is almost identical, the voice is similar, but where a different name is used and no claim is made to be Donald Trump?
theonemind 3y ago
The Supreme Court has historically upheld the first amendment pretty well. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater and the like, it doesn't mean you can say anything by legal precedent, but you can say a lot. On a historical time scale, it seems like a steady stream of legislation get passed and completely struck down or neutered into irrelevance on first contact with the Supreme Court shortly after attempted enforcement. I guess the optics are good in taking money from entrenched interests and looking good to your constituents on passing stuff that the Supreme Court will neuter in less than a year. I just find it boggling that they don't even try to write legislation that will stand challenge.
- jonhohle 3y ago
  If that’s the state of things - taking money for personal interest to oppress the people that are suppose to be represented - perhaps we need an amendment to bar holding public office after attaching a name (authoring or sponsoring) to bills that get struck down as constitutional. I don’t know what the solution is, but there should be some teeth and personal accountability for shenanigans like this.
  - pksebben 3y ago
    Yeah but like, how do you change the rules when the people who can make the rules are the ones who made the rules because they like it that way? Kinda feels like asking the king to ditch the crown because "yaknow, it's the right thing to do"
- akerl_ 3y ago
  At risk of nit picking: you can shout fire in a crowded theater. That was a metaphor used in a historic case that’s been pretty radically walked back given how bad of an opinion it was. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Is a good read on the topic.
  - wodenokoto 3y ago
mariodiana 3y ago
[flagged]
jmull 3y ago
The wildly over-broad part of this is that anyone making a "personalized cloning service" available is liable under this law. That's nuts because there numerous legitimate uses for such a service. This law would cover anything capable of making deepfakes of a person, which would kill off generative AIs in general.
autoexec 3y ago
I like how the law requires you to have signed an agreement with a person before you're allowed to make a video with their likeness, but the law also applies to people who are dead and incapable of signing an agreement at all. No more putting dead starwars actors into new movies I guess.
tycho-newman 3y ago
The First Amendment does not protect: - false statements (fraud, libel, defamation). - "fighting words" - true threats - obscenity under a community standards test - child sexual abuse imagery (obscenity per she) - speech that incites imminent lawless action There's always room to debate what AI has to contribute. But it is already illegal to defraud people with forged documents. Forged videos are still forged documents.
Jam111223 3y ago
[dead]

120 points by elsewhen 3y ago

Lastodon 3y ago

[flagged]

switch007 3y ago
Oh come on it's not that bad! It's just things which threaten their power
logicchains 3y ago
Because every time there's something cool and new, it could threaten the profits of large slow-moving incumbents, so the incumbents use their lobbying power to try to get bureaucrats to neuter or kill the threat.

duringmath 3y ago

[flagged]

cebert 3y ago

Are actors on SNL going to be banned next?

bigbillheck 3y ago

Reading between the lines this doesn't seem all that different than California's likeness-protection law.

Buttons840 3y ago

Maybe this is reasonable, iff it only applies to fake media that is indistinguishable from the real thing. Like, if you show a jury two videos and they can't tell which one is real and which one is fake. I can accept that there is an implied claim of realism by creating realistic media, and that would be a lie, very similar to libel.

mattw2121 3y ago
I understand and appreciate your point, but I would like to point out there is a large segment of society that, if shown an article from The Onion, wouldn't realize it is satire.
- dotancohen 3y ago
  And those peoples' votes matter no less than yours. Misinformation is very dangerous in a democracy, especially when it is easier to sow than real information.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Buttons840 3y ago
  I think it's okay for The Onion to make satirical news reports, but maybe not okay to make a realistic deep-fake of someone. An actor could dress and act like that person though.
  - criddell 3y ago
    Would this be allowed: https://www.theonion.com/frail-emaciated-mlb-players-still-a-few-weeks-away-fro-1851169390 https://www.theonion.com/frail-emaciated-mlb-players-still-a... In case you aren't a baseball fan, that's a photoshopped image of baseball player Cory Seager.
    - wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
      I was maybe on Buttons side but your checkmate won me over.
  - Cheer2171 3y ago
    What about a comedian who does voice impressions that are good enough to be indistinguishable from the politician to the average person?

Buttons840 3y ago

> It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice replica" in a "manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce" if the individual agrees (in writing) to said use. Is there anything that isn't "interstate commerce"? Remember, while the court was clutching their pearls over Roe v Wade and other cases not too long ago, they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand, in which it was decided that someone growing food on their own land to feed to their own animals was "interstate commerce". My understanding is that it's important for everything to be interstate commerce because the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, and so if we define interstate commerce to include everything, then the federal government can regulate everything.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>>they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand Has there been a case to challenge this recently? The current court is looking at Alot of old precedents and is poised to rollback federal power in some big ways. Before them right now is a case on Chevron Deference I am not aware of any that has been before the current current that would challenge Wickard or any of the other terrible rulings that followed Wickard. So I am not sure the statement of "they allowed Wickard v Filburn to stand" is accurate.
RecycledEle 3y ago
> It states that "every individual has a property right in their own likeness and voice," and people can only use someone's "digital depiction or digital voice replica" in a "manner affecting interstate or foreign commerce" if the individual agrees (in writing) to said use. Really? So it's illegal to record my likeness with your security camera and it's illegal to use my likeness to stop me from stealing because that affects the price of goods in interstate commerce? I'm tempted to demand cops turn off their body cameras the day this goes into effect. Same of all government survillance. If I can find an honest judge, I'll freaking own the government. Who elected these idiot? Oh, right, never mind. I thought the counted my vote for a minute but obviously not.
- 3y ago

Tanoc 3y ago

Reading through the actual law, it seems that only a few qualifiers are needed to prevent abuse. Although it seems it could be rendered toothless according to page twelve, section twelve, subsection two. The wording in that means somebody could interpret other parody laws to render enforcement basically impossible. It's also concerning that the main focus tends to be on musicians, despite listing deepfake nudes and other malicious uses of the technology as reasons for incitement of the bill.

cogman10 3y ago
Agreed, it starts by talking about AI and then when the actual law is written it does not use a single qualifier to identify AI. It's written in a way that almost makes me think some public figure is mad they got lampooned on SNL or some comedy sketch.

keepamovin 3y ago

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Comedy, I mean. I guess... it's OK, we'll all be 'safer' probably. At least we've still got ... clean air. But you don't need AI to do a great Trump impression. I've seen: Tyler Fischer, Shane Gillis and 'Godfrey' do good impressions. They really nail the voice. It's funny how impression-able Trump's voice is. His voice is its own character, as is his hand gestures. I guess entertainers need to evolve to have some characteristic.

gremlinsinc 3y ago
they should just blanket ban all impersonations, while they're at it. I feel like thought police might be closer than we think at this point.
- hightrix 3y ago
  May as well ban all acting while they are at it. Wouldn't want someone to confuse an actor in a biopic for the real thing, would we?
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Dude, they already have them in the UK. And Canada. Certain ideas and expressions of those ideas are outlawed based on how they spread: "misinformation" and "hate". Misinformation (ie, not knowing what you're talking about, but speculating and trying on theories), or being in the unknown, is the foundation of frontier science, which is basically the invention of ignorance. So, you're no longer allowed to think, and if you can't think, you have to be told what the truth is...So...religion I guess? Hate (ie, a wide spectrum of behaviors that is easy to allege but challenging to objectively verify and often deployed without nuance, self-awareness or impartiality) can just be subjective confirmation of existing biases. Hate could just be I don't like this person, then the accuser is like, "That's hate!", but then it's like, "Isn't it hate to accuse of that? Aren't people allowed their preferences?" These dual problems of misinfo and hate (the new heresy and blasphemy, I suppose, administrative and legalistic tools which have been deployed in the past in the service of a ruling class to suppress or control a subjugated class), are exacerbated by the pseudo-collectivist elevation of one's "group identity" to a place of primacy, where the state seems to not only suggest that group identity is more important than individual identity, but it seeks to take responsibility for the interactions at group identity level, thereby amplifying the sense of victimhood, and lack of personal responsibility, that already underpins the psychological vulnerabilities that compels people into the larger cultural conflict traps already in play. Anyway, that's my sort of literary theory, cultrual crit attempt to describe it, hahaha! :)

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

I think it would be least likely to outlaw political cartoons or parodies as those can be forms of criticism of the government, one of our most sacred rights. We don't have freedom of speech so that we can talk about the weather. With that said, isn't it already against the law to use someone's likeness, especially for commercial/political gain?

hospitalJail 3y ago

Bandaid stuff. Local models are out there, this is a situation where moral people comply with the law, but immoral people use a corporation to shield themselves.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

RecycledEle 3y ago

This reminds me of ReasonTV's playlist on Unintended Consequences on YouTube.

elif 3y ago

Sorry but you will never regulate memes. The actually harmful AI deepfakes like fake Elon and Mr beast scamming old people with fake crypto, and deepfake porn, are already illegal and still impossible to regulate. Are you going to fine Google everytime a throwaway account uploads to YouTube. Let's be realistic here, this law will only be used by celebrities hiring lawyers to attack comical parody.

Y-bar 3y ago
> Are you going to fine Google everytime a throwaway account uploads to YouTube. That kind of depends on Google's modus operandi, doesn't it? Like telecom network not doing enough to combat robo-calls. If Google wants to reap the profit from allowing people to upload content, they should also perhaps share a part of the responsibility of anything that happens from their own (in)actions? If Google has ha habit of taking down malicious content, then less responsibility perhaps? If Google attempts to put into place safeguards versus repeat offenders, then less responsibility again perhaps? Like if a person is speeding and causes an accident, the government could in theory share part of responsibility if the road they designed and built did not have adequate best-practice safeguards against head-on collisions. A news network could also face legal issues for lies said on it's programmes by guests and hosts regarding voting machines.
- elif 3y ago
  Google takes every step you mentioned and has departments working on it daily. It's still just as common as it was 2 years ago.
  - Retric 3y ago
    Google makes a token effort based on the current risk v reward calculation. Increase the risks and they might actually become effective.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    Then maybe one monolithic video platform that serves the streaming needs of an audience the size of YouTube's isn't a good business plan. For decades the mantra of Silicon Valley has been "eat the world" on a given service you provide, alright, fine. Then provide it. And if you can't provide a service to billions of people without the quality of said service going into the shitter, then the suggestion I have for you is to not eat the world.

batch12 3y ago

Imagine getting something like DCMA takedowns because your voice happens to sound similar to someone famous or you look like someone else.

dotancohen 3y ago
Your voice or your looks are not AI.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  How do you prove that outside of a courtroom?
- fallingknife 3y ago
  And for only $700 / hour to hire an expert witness on AI (on top of hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills to get to that point), you can prove it in court!
- jjulius 3y ago
  And a bot programmed to scan YT for anything that sounds like X person's voice isn't going to give a shit if it's literally just your voice, they'll still throw a DMCA notice at your video. Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice.
  - judge2020 3y ago
    > Bogus DMCA takedowns are thrown at people all the time for stuff like this, and Google already hardly cares to hear your argument against the notice. The automated system you're talking about is called Content ID and is "not DMCA". DMCA is a legal statute, which is where copyright holders expressly file a notice to YouTube that they're hosting infringing content, and getting one as an uploader will lead to an account strike. Content ID is completely separate from any legal mandate (besides the settlement Google made with Viacom). In fact, it's even separate from Copyright entirely; YouTube is under no obligation for Content ID to operate only on copyrighted content. If YouTube was willing, they could take a paycheck from Disney to keep Steamboat Willie stuff protected by Content ID, since it's their own system and their own rules. For this reason, the process for Content ID appeals is tougher - it's in YouTube's best interest to keep videos claimed, particularly if they need to appease rights holders[0] who hold all the cards for whether or not their music is available on YouTube. If it were a DMCA notice instead, you would have a legal right to counter the DMCA notice (under fair use) and get your video reinstated, unless the rights holder tells YT they have filed suit against you. 0: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42420218

paganel 3y ago

That's one the main points of using AI for censorship, they'll be able to ban all that (parodies, political cartoons and more) while "blaming" AI, going by the: "it was the algorithm/computer code, not us!". In fact the whole process of outsourcing the implementation of censorship to private entities (Facebook, Alphabet etc) is part of that same shtick, and it's pretty effective in the short to medium term. Of course, in the long term it only helps bread more discontent when it comes to the system, which discontent this time around also involves private entities (just notice how trust in the privately-owned mainstream media has cratered almost everywhere in the Western world in the last ten or so years), but I guess the powers that be have stopped caring for the long-term health of the system a long time ago.

sumtechguy 3y ago
It is interesting if you look at the talks at davros this time they are talking about trying to put that trust back and only 'one tech mogul is not onboard'. The people with money want the gatekeepers back. The tech industry is glad to help.

seydor 3y ago

[flagged]

jncfhnb 3y ago

They reference the Tom hanks dental thing but that looked to me like it was obviously not a deepfake. This law seems vaguely ok. If the general premise of no ai replication of individual people’s physical qualities and voice without permission then sure whatever. It won’t make much of a difference though. People’s voices arnt appearances aren’t as special as we think

zug_zug 3y ago

I don't know if this is in the bill, but all (non-advertisement) parody videos etc should simply be legal on the condition if they display the word "PARODY" in the upper right in White on black font size 13 taking up no less than 5% of the video's height (or something).

voakbasda 3y ago
That would be “compelled speech”, which should not pass Constitutional muster. I say “should” because the courts have already taken big stinking dumps on all of our supposedly inalienable rights, so who knows how it would actually go.
bluescrn 3y ago
Let's do that for advertising first... (Or maybe not at all, think of the screen burn-in)
aio2 3y ago
people usually put disclaimers for that kind of stuff
fallingknife 3y ago
> I don't know if this is in the bill, but all (non-advertisement) parody videos etc should simply be legal FTFY
oceanplexian 3y ago
I’d agree to that as long as politicians have to wear the same label any time they speak about legislating AI, because they’re clearly so lost and out of touch it must be a parody.

dotancohen 3y ago

After considerable thought, far before this article landed, I have to agree. I have no problem with AI inventing new things. But purporting to be something else - the potential for confusion is far too great. A human parody that contains obvious clues that even those unfamiliar with the subject would recognize as not being the subject - that's fine. But a near-perfect copy of the subject of satire, that is too far. Way too far. The potential for abuse is far too great. Obviously, banning such usage will not prevent outlaws and rogue states from doing this very thing. The goal of the banning is to send a clear signal that in our society, we do not accept such things. Much like chemical weapons. It will also help contain the spread of such things in our society even if our enemies try to send it to us, like child pornography.

oceanplexian 3y ago
What’s your plan to enforce it? Because passing a law doesn’t magically eliminate a problem. Often times laws increase the behavior they are trying to prevent, like drug laws.
axus 3y ago
How about something like "Sassy Justice", where the image is almost identical, the voice is similar, but where a different name is used and no claim is made to be Donald Trump?

theonemind 3y ago

The Supreme Court has historically upheld the first amendment pretty well. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater and the like, it doesn't mean you can say anything by legal precedent, but you can say a lot. On a historical time scale, it seems like a steady stream of legislation get passed and completely struck down or neutered into irrelevance on first contact with the Supreme Court shortly after attempted enforcement. I guess the optics are good in taking money from entrenched interests and looking good to your constituents on passing stuff that the Supreme Court will neuter in less than a year. I just find it boggling that they don't even try to write legislation that will stand challenge.

jonhohle 3y ago
If that’s the state of things - taking money for personal interest to oppress the people that are suppose to be represented - perhaps we need an amendment to bar holding public office after attaching a name (authoring or sponsoring) to bills that get struck down as constitutional. I don’t know what the solution is, but there should be some teeth and personal accountability for shenanigans like this.
- pksebben 3y ago
  Yeah but like, how do you change the rules when the people who can make the rules are the ones who made the rules because they like it that way? Kinda feels like asking the king to ditch the crown because "yaknow, it's the right thing to do"
akerl_ 3y ago
At risk of nit picking: you can shout fire in a crowded theater. That was a metaphor used in a historic case that’s been pretty radically walked back given how bad of an opinion it was. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Is a good read on the topic.
- wodenokoto 3y ago

mariodiana 3y ago

[flagged]

jmull 3y ago

The wildly over-broad part of this is that anyone making a "personalized cloning service" available is liable under this law. That's nuts because there numerous legitimate uses for such a service. This law would cover anything capable of making deepfakes of a person, which would kill off generative AIs in general.

autoexec 3y ago

I like how the law requires you to have signed an agreement with a person before you're allowed to make a video with their likeness, but the law also applies to people who are dead and incapable of signing an agreement at all. No more putting dead starwars actors into new movies I guess.

tycho-newman 3y ago

The First Amendment does not protect: - false statements (fraud, libel, defamation). - "fighting words" - true threats - obscenity under a community standards test - child sexual abuse imagery (obscenity per she) - speech that incites imminent lawless action There's always room to debate what AI has to contribute. But it is already illegal to defraud people with forged documents. Forged videos are still forged documents.

Jam111223 3y ago

[dead]