I think the interesting thing is that this lower barrier to entry reveals some opinions people have about image that may have been incongruent with the way the

I think the interesting thing is that this lower barrier to entry reveals some opinions people have about image that may have been incongruent with the way the law was written, that is now driven into sharper focus by making the barrier to entry almost zero. Clearly people seem to have some opinions about “image” etc that are much more aligned with “elvis laws” etc - ie that some forms of expression should be outlawed if they conflict with someone else’s right to control their own image especially commercially etc. https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/elvis-act-tennessee-safeguards-against-deepfakes https://www.adamsandreese.com/news-knowledge/elvis-act-tenne... Under such Elvis laws, hiring an Elvis impersonator would be illegal, because their right to image trumps your right to expression. There are specific carveouts for basically traditional Elvis impersonation itself (and to try and stave off the obvious 1st amendment issues) but everything else is outlawed - you cannot be a Dolly Parton impersonator or a Taylor Swift impersonator today, under these laws, because it is treated differently now. But it’s the same problem as “students learning is diffusion too” problem - the model is not different in kind, it is diffusing and remixing ideas and infringing copyright just like a student writing a paper, it just does the same things enormously faster etc, which throws the inherent contradictions into light by removing the cost/barrier to entry. And it’s able to rapidly and skillfully generate photoshops at a rate and quality far higher than humans could achieve too.