516
TikTok ran a deepfake ad of an AI MrBeast hawking iPhones for $2 — and it's the 'tip of the iceberg' (www.businessinsider.com)
submitted 3 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

TikTok ran a deepfake ad of an AI MrBeast hawking iPhones for $2 — and it's the 'tip of the iceberg'::As AI spreads, it brings new challenges for influencers like MrBeast and platforms like TikTok aiming to police unauthorized advertising.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 3 years ago* (11 children)

How is making it illegal to steal a person's face and make them say things they never agreed to going to make China an AI super power?

Not gonna lie my dude you have a luke warm take

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (8 children)

    It’s already illegal to impersonate someone to steal money. It’s called fraud.

    AI is going to cause huge problems (I am really worried about how things are going to shake out) but I’m also not convinced writing special laws about it is going to change anything. We do need to make sure our current laws don’t have loopholes that AI can somehow exploit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (7 children)

    It's fraud to use it for financial gain, however it's not illegal to directly copy someone's likeness for non business uses.

    You can legally make videos of people saying or doing things that hadn't, and as this technology gets more advanced we will see more of its effects. Politics will be very tricky when you can upload a video of Presidents or candidates saying literally anything.

    Not only that, but make someone commit a crime on camera? Even if you aren't trying to get them prosecuted, it could lead to severe issues. You could ruin someone's career by making them scream slurs at someone in a Starbucks or make videos of them being abusive to their families.

    You can argue its slander and libel, but where does that fall into AI? What's the line? What if I make a joke song with someone's voice? What if I make a joke video that has them doing horrible things? What's the line?

    Slander and libel laws don't have clearer distinctions when it comes to AI voice and video synth

    I also think there should be distinctions here. This isn't just slapping someone's face onto an ad with a fake quote, this is creating a video of them saying something they never said using a technology that doesn't just inch closer, but makes leaps and bounds towards being indistinguishable from reality

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    You can argue its slander and libel, but where does that fall into AI? What’s the line? What if I make a joke song with someone’s voice? What if I make a joke video that has them doing horrible things? What’s the line?

    Trashing someone's reputation I would imagine, especially if they're a public figure that relies on their reputation monetarily.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    These laws require that there is intent to cause harm to a reputation

    How do you deal with cases where these AI cause damage financially but you can't prove or prosecute on intent?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    IANAL, but not asking for permission to use their image/persona shows intent?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago

    It’s fraud to use it for financial gain, however it’s not illegal to directly copy someone’s likeness for non business uses.

    So, never mind the fact that almost any use case is going to be for political or financial gain. Let's just take the Mr Beast example here.

    It's an ad. It's being used for financial gain, because it's an ad. Either somebody is actually selling $2 iPhones (doubtful), or it's a scam. Scams are also illegal, under various kinds of laws. Unfortunately, scams are usually committed in other countries.

    This is an ad on a Chinese social media platform. Who's going to enforce getting rid of this shit on a Chinese social media platform? Yeah, I know you're going to point out that TikTok US is technically a US company, but we all know who really owns ByteDance and TikTok.

    A federal investigation on this matter is going to point to TikTok US and then lead nowhere because the scam was created in China.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    How is making it illegal to steal a person’s face and make them say things they never agreed to going to make China an AI super power?

    One, fraud is already illegal, and there's plenty of other laws to use in this situation. And none of those laws apply to other countries. A country like China doesn't give a shit, and will gladly use AI to dupe American audiences into whatever they want to manipulate.

    Two, as soon as you ask Congress to enact some law to defend against the big bad AI monster under your bed, it's going to go one of two ways:

    1. They push some law that's so toothless that it doesn't really do anything except limit the consumer and put even more power into the corporations.
    2. They push a law so restrictive that other countries take advantage of the situation and develop better AI than we have. And yes, a technology this important has the ability to give one country a huge advantage.

    It's an arms race right now. Either we adapt to these situations with enforcement, education, and containment, or other countries will control our behaviors through manipulation and propaganda. More laws and legislation is not going to magically fix the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Copyright infringement was also already illegal, but mass copyright infringement on major platforms didn't really get handled until the DMCA came out with specific responsibilities for how platforms had to handle copyright infringement.

    Like, if you let 15 seconds of the wrong pop-song appear in a YouTube vid they will come after you because YouTube has to avoid being liable for that infringement, but the phone companies can let scammers run rampant without consequence.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent