3 ms·
So, people should read the bill. Roughly, my take is: It does feel true that this is hasty and responsive; there's an obvious "demand" for this kind of legisla
by jrm4 2y ago
So, people should read the bill.
Roughly, my take is: It does feel true that this is hasty and responsive; there's an obvious "demand" for this kind of legislation.
That being said; I don't find the bill itself to be particularly problematic. The actual changes to the law are kind of minimal. "Digital forgery" as they use it, sure, could apply to Photoshops as well.
Big picture here, I have no qualms with this, even if it is more "show" than "substance."
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago>"Digital forgery" as they use it, sure, could apply to Photoshops as well. It probably should. I don't think the technology matters, what is created in it does.
- apwell23 2y agoYea. We use to call it "morphing" we were teenagers. We created a bunch ourselves of movie actors and shared among ourselves as a fodder for mastrubation.
- plorkyeran 2y agoYeah, the relevance of the technology is only in whether it's a big enough problem to be worth legislating. It would be weird for it to be legal to make fake porn of someone only if you put some real effort into it rather than doing it the easy way.
- AnnikaL 2y agoYeah, Photoshopping people's faces into porn and posting it on the Internet doesn't strike me as much different than using AI to do the same, except that it might be more obviously fake.
- causal 2y agoNot a lawyer; agree it seems pretty reasonable and not-overbroad. IMO the most subjective aspect is what constitutes likeness. I presume that's left to judge/jury's discretion? The range of face-recognition ability is pretty broad.