4 ms·

"to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual" so if deepfake would be generated with distinct

"to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual" so if deepfake would be generated with distinctive indication that this is AI generated forgery then it would be ok? for example cyborg hand or palm and everything else like real person.

Moldoteck 2y ago
visual depiction of the individual can include a cyborg hand so imo no, if there are obvious clues that some person is d-faked, it still applies
nness 2y ago
I guess they're applying the same test you would expect with libel; would the layman expect the speech to be truth or intentionally misrepresentative — i.e. would the image be construed as real. Otherwise, parody and criticism using AI would be limited.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hobofan 2y ago
No, this is addressed in the bill text > regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic
codekisser 2y ago
I think nothing less than a watermark or caption will suffice, but this is probably a problem that will have to be answered in courts. I can't believe they would pass a law with such ambiguity. What do these people do all day?
amiga386 2y ago
It seems fairly clear to me that if the depiction is obviously not real, that's OK - for example if it looks just like [celeb] but they have blue skin or 10 eyes or 6 legs, or it's a cartoon, etc. But most people producing fake celeb porn are making images that, at first glance, look exactly like [celeb], and only on careful inspection do you see AI-telltales like wrong numbers of fingers. Easy to miss. The law is saying that these realistic images are not OK and the person depicted in them can sue, no matter how many disclaimers you add to the picture. It applies to well-made photoshops created by humans just as much as AI slop.

Moldoteck 2y ago

visual depiction of the individual can include a cyborg hand so imo no, if there are obvious clues that some person is d-faked, it still applies

nness 2y ago

I guess they're applying the same test you would expect with libel; would the layman expect the speech to be truth or intentionally misrepresentative — i.e. would the image be construed as real. Otherwise, parody and criticism using AI would be limited.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hobofan 2y ago

No, this is addressed in the bill text > regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic

codekisser 2y ago

I think nothing less than a watermark or caption will suffice, but this is probably a problem that will have to be answered in courts. I can't believe they would pass a law with such ambiguity. What do these people do all day?

amiga386 2y ago

It seems fairly clear to me that if the depiction is obviously not real, that's OK - for example if it looks just like [celeb] but they have blue skin or 10 eyes or 6 legs, or it's a cartoon, etc. But most people producing fake celeb porn are making images that, at first glance, look exactly like [celeb], and only on careful inspection do you see AI-telltales like wrong numbers of fingers. Easy to miss. The law is saying that these realistic images are not OK and the person depicted in them can sue, no matter how many disclaimers you add to the picture. It applies to well-made photoshops created by humans just as much as AI slop.