4 ms·

It's going to be an interesting First Amendment question.

giancarlostoro 2y ago
Might as well make photoshopping and manual audio tweaking / impersonation illegal, since its the same ballpark, just less effort.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  We need better liable and slander enforcement. Treat realistic media as a truth claim that is subject to liable laws.
- wwweston 2y ago
  A bit like breaking a door is "the same ballpark" as unlocking it with a key. Or paying with legit currency instead of counterfeit. Sometimes all you want is the effect, other times it's important that you're accurately representing effort or accounting for other human considerations.
- Drakim 2y ago
  Might as well make forging signatures and identity thief legal. Who is the government to say which squiggles I may and may not write? Society is about compromises and balancing different needs against each other. Sometimes we go one way, other times we go the other way, there is no one principle that always solve any situation.
  - 123yawaworht456 2y ago
    no one demands a moratorium on pens and pencils because someone might write illegal squiggles with them. we simply accept the fact that 0.0001% of squiggles will be illegal, harmful, hateful, unethical, unsafe, etc, so we can use the pen and pencil tech to write the other 99.9999% of squiggles. the current lobbying and legislating efforts seek to outlaw pens and pencils produced by anyone but a handful of US corporation, who only let you use their pens and pencils if you let them look over your shoulder while you write your squiggles.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      yes, and if it became, say, 10-20% squiggles we'd have a different conversation. Those 0.0001% will be fought in court. I think it's obvious which industry I'm referring to.
- saaaaaam 2y ago
  But I think if you photoshopped someone into an advertising image in a way that made them appear to endorse your product you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? So I’m increasingly of the opinion that it’s not the tool that needs to be regulated, but the use of the output. Clone voices? Fine. Clone voices for deceptive or commercial purposes without the person’s consent? Not fine. But then how do you prove it, what is deceptive, what is non-consenting voice cloning, yadda yadda. I imagine we will shortly see a raft of YouTubers adding “do not clone my voice” notices to their channels like the Facebook “by posting this notice you remove all rights for Facebook to steal the copyright in your photos” spam posts that were doing the rounds at one point.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? A lawsuit from a private individual or business entity is very different from the federal, state, or municipal government attempting to silence you, the latter is prohibited by the First Amendment. I find it appalling that this needs to be spelled out.
    - saaaaaam 2y ago
      I wasn’t replying to the comment about the First Amendment, I was responding to a (what I assume was a somewhat satirical) comment about making photoshop illegal. Fully aware of the difference between a civil lawsuit vs government lawsuit though so you can pop your italics back in the box and rest easy!
- chefandy 2y ago
  So currently, if I Photoshop a picture of Scarlett Johansen into in an ad for my hot dog stand, that would be unambiguously no problem? Nobody's talking about making AI illegal, but some people seem to think it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for copyright violations, and it's just not.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I do think deepfakes or anything done to intentially mislead/impersonate should be illegal, yes. Intent is 90% of the law.

Might as well make photoshopping and manual audio tweaking / impersonation illegal, since its the same ballpark, just less effort.

Buttons840 2y ago
We need better liable and slander enforcement. Treat realistic media as a truth claim that is subject to liable laws.
wwweston 2y ago
A bit like breaking a door is "the same ballpark" as unlocking it with a key. Or paying with legit currency instead of counterfeit. Sometimes all you want is the effect, other times it's important that you're accurately representing effort or accounting for other human considerations.
Drakim 2y ago
Might as well make forging signatures and identity thief legal. Who is the government to say which squiggles I may and may not write? Society is about compromises and balancing different needs against each other. Sometimes we go one way, other times we go the other way, there is no one principle that always solve any situation.
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  no one demands a moratorium on pens and pencils because someone might write illegal squiggles with them. we simply accept the fact that 0.0001% of squiggles will be illegal, harmful, hateful, unethical, unsafe, etc, so we can use the pen and pencil tech to write the other 99.9999% of squiggles. the current lobbying and legislating efforts seek to outlaw pens and pencils produced by anyone but a handful of US corporation, who only let you use their pens and pencils if you let them look over your shoulder while you write your squiggles.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    yes, and if it became, say, 10-20% squiggles we'd have a different conversation. Those 0.0001% will be fought in court. I think it's obvious which industry I'm referring to.
saaaaaam 2y ago
But I think if you photoshopped someone into an advertising image in a way that made them appear to endorse your product you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? So I’m increasingly of the opinion that it’s not the tool that needs to be regulated, but the use of the output. Clone voices? Fine. Clone voices for deceptive or commercial purposes without the person’s consent? Not fine. But then how do you prove it, what is deceptive, what is non-consenting voice cloning, yadda yadda. I imagine we will shortly see a raft of YouTubers adding “do not clone my voice” notices to their channels like the Facebook “by posting this notice you remove all rights for Facebook to steal the copyright in your photos” spam posts that were doing the rounds at one point.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  >you would probably very quickly be hit (and lose?) a lawsuit right? A lawsuit from a private individual or business entity is very different from the federal, state, or municipal government attempting to silence you, the latter is prohibited by the First Amendment. I find it appalling that this needs to be spelled out.
  - saaaaaam 2y ago
    I wasn’t replying to the comment about the First Amendment, I was responding to a (what I assume was a somewhat satirical) comment about making photoshop illegal. Fully aware of the difference between a civil lawsuit vs government lawsuit though so you can pop your italics back in the box and rest easy!
chefandy 2y ago
So currently, if I Photoshop a picture of Scarlett Johansen into in an ad for my hot dog stand, that would be unambiguously no problem? Nobody's talking about making AI illegal, but some people seem to think it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for copyright violations, and it's just not.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
I do think deepfakes or anything done to intentially mislead/impersonate should be illegal, yes. Intent is 90% of the law.