2 ms·

I wish governments would treat things like this as equivalent to fraud. It might not be taking people's money, but it's taking away access to truth through aut

by avaer 10mo ago

I wish governments would treat things like this as equivalent to fraud. It might not be taking people's money, but it's taking away access to truth through automated deception, which might even be worse. Back when it took a madman to pollute discourse the public square, maybe you could have called it their right free speech, but this is not that. This is just computer assisted fraud, and exactly the kind of thing that computer hacking laws should be for.

eudamoniac 10mo ago
How is this different from hiring actors to do guerilla marketing, or hiring influencers to pretend to like something, both of which happen constantly?
- armchairhacker 10mo ago
  Both should be "false advertising", which may not be considered "fraud", but the main point stands that both should be illegal in some contexts. But not all contexts. People are allowed to lie: e.g., I can tell my friend that a bag of Lay's chips has 0 calories and 100g protein, or (relevant here) that I'm Dua Lipa. People specifically aren't allowed to lie "officially": e.g., I can't sell Lay's chips with inaccurate nutrition facts, or present a fake ID that says I'm Dua Lipa to board a flight. I think online should work roughly similarly. On the open web, using an AI-generated persona is like lying about your A/S/L, which is like other forms of lying: immoral, but not illegal. However, there should be "authentic" sites, where posting "inauthentic" content gets you banned by the site and maybe (if you're subverting bans) fined. In fact, this is what we have today: sites have "terms of service", and although breaking them usually only gets you banned, I believe in most places you can technically be sued. The problem here is that popular social media sites don't enforce authenticity, and whoever's making these videos (if they're subverting bans) isn't getting fined.
- rchaud 10mo ago
  Time and money. There are laws limiting email spam because the unit cost of sending and distributing them is almost zero, which is a great incentive for bad people. Hiring actors and shooting videos for political propaganda takes time and money, whereas AI slop is nearly free.

by avaer 10mo ago

eudamoniac 10mo ago

How is this different from hiring actors to do guerilla marketing, or hiring influencers to pretend to like something, both of which happen constantly?

armchairhacker 10mo ago
Both should be "false advertising", which may not be considered "fraud", but the main point stands that both should be illegal in some contexts. But not all contexts. People are allowed to lie: e.g., I can tell my friend that a bag of Lay's chips has 0 calories and 100g protein, or (relevant here) that I'm Dua Lipa. People specifically aren't allowed to lie "officially": e.g., I can't sell Lay's chips with inaccurate nutrition facts, or present a fake ID that says I'm Dua Lipa to board a flight. I think online should work roughly similarly. On the open web, using an AI-generated persona is like lying about your A/S/L, which is like other forms of lying: immoral, but not illegal. However, there should be "authentic" sites, where posting "inauthentic" content gets you banned by the site and maybe (if you're subverting bans) fined. In fact, this is what we have today: sites have "terms of service", and although breaking them usually only gets you banned, I believe in most places you can technically be sued. The problem here is that popular social media sites don't enforce authenticity, and whoever's making these videos (if they're subverting bans) isn't getting fined.
rchaud 10mo ago
Time and money. There are laws limiting email spam because the unit cost of sending and distributing them is almost zero, which is a great incentive for bad people. Hiring actors and shooting videos for political propaganda takes time and money, whereas AI slop is nearly free.