3 ms·

As a thought experiment: if I were to use AI to generate a video of a famous person describing how much they love green beans, and how they’ll do anything to ge

by akerl_ 3y ago

As a thought experiment: if I were to use AI to generate a video of a famous person describing how much they love green beans, and how they’ll do anything to get their hands on a can of delicious green beans, and I post it publicly have I committed a crime?

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
You mean like Steve Jobs' Apple Orchards? https://youtu.be/lm8cScTvvBo?si=7ItrpdnFPqgLLNxR https://youtu.be/lm8cScTvvBo?si=7ItrpdnFPqgLLNxR
- akerl_ 3y ago
  Let’s assume for sake of the hypothetical: like that, but with no disclaimer at the front and with video instead of photos.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
Assuming there's no actual deeper political or financial implications, no. The standard for libel and slander for a public figure are 1. The content is inaccurate. 2. You knew it was inaccurate (you have to have known they don't feel that way about green beans). 3. The content does measurable harm to their reputation or business. If that feels like a borderline impossible standard to reach, well, now you know why celebrity tabloids are so prevalent, despite their wealthy, powerful, influential targets hating them. We take free speech very seriously in the United States.
- akerl_ 3y ago
  I think the part of this that will be interesting, and that the legal system will have difficulty addressing, is what “inaccurate” means. At any point in history, I could have written an article about why I believe that a prominent public figure worships the devil and is engaged in a plot to blow up the moon. As long as I didn’t attempt to back up my story with undisclosed facts (“I was allowed access to his email inbox, and now it’s clear to me that he’s trying to blow up the moon”) or lie about a hard fact (“he told me that he is going to blow up the moon”), I would be fine. The gap for faked media is that you can blur the line between what I am saying about someone and what it looks like they’re saying themselves. So if I make a fake video that appears to be Obama cackling while he describes his plan to blow up the moon, and post it to my YouTube account… am I presenting it as if Obama said these things? Obama doesn’t generally publish content on random tech dudes’ YouTube channels. There’s a line somewhere where the presumption is that the content is faked, but I don’t know of any firm answers so far from the legal system on where they plan to draw that line.
GuB-42 3y ago
The person you impersonated may sue you, I guess. You used his image to promote green beans without the right to do so. Normally that's something you pay for, you didn't, and I guess he may ask for what the personality rights for such an ad would normally cost. And depending on how you done it, it could conceivably damage to his reputation, qualifying as defamation. I don't know, maybe he got in trouble with the red bean industry because of that. That's similar to violating a trademark.

by akerl_ 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

You mean like Steve Jobs' Apple Orchards? https://youtu.be/lm8cScTvvBo?si=7ItrpdnFPqgLLNxR https://youtu.be/lm8cScTvvBo?si=7ItrpdnFPqgLLNxR

akerl_ 3y ago
Let’s assume for sake of the hypothetical: like that, but with no disclaimer at the front and with video instead of photos.

BobaFloutist 3y ago

Assuming there's no actual deeper political or financial implications, no. The standard for libel and slander for a public figure are 1. The content is inaccurate. 2. You knew it was inaccurate (you have to have known they don't feel that way about green beans). 3. The content does measurable harm to their reputation or business. If that feels like a borderline impossible standard to reach, well, now you know why celebrity tabloids are so prevalent, despite their wealthy, powerful, influential targets hating them. We take free speech very seriously in the United States.

akerl_ 3y ago
I think the part of this that will be interesting, and that the legal system will have difficulty addressing, is what “inaccurate” means. At any point in history, I could have written an article about why I believe that a prominent public figure worships the devil and is engaged in a plot to blow up the moon. As long as I didn’t attempt to back up my story with undisclosed facts (“I was allowed access to his email inbox, and now it’s clear to me that he’s trying to blow up the moon”) or lie about a hard fact (“he told me that he is going to blow up the moon”), I would be fine. The gap for faked media is that you can blur the line between what I am saying about someone and what it looks like they’re saying themselves. So if I make a fake video that appears to be Obama cackling while he describes his plan to blow up the moon, and post it to my YouTube account… am I presenting it as if Obama said these things? Obama doesn’t generally publish content on random tech dudes’ YouTube channels. There’s a line somewhere where the presumption is that the content is faked, but I don’t know of any firm answers so far from the legal system on where they plan to draw that line.

GuB-42 3y ago

The person you impersonated may sue you, I guess. You used his image to promote green beans without the right to do so. Normally that's something you pay for, you didn't, and I guess he may ask for what the personality rights for such an ad would normally cost. And depending on how you done it, it could conceivably damage to his reputation, qualifying as defamation. I don't know, maybe he got in trouble with the red bean industry because of that. That's similar to violating a trademark.