‘I Don't Believe Deepfakes Should Be Regulated,' Says Man Who Is the Reason Deepfakes Should Be Regulated
‘I Don't Believe Deepfakes Should Be Regulated,' Says Man Who Is the Reason Deepfakes Should Be Regulated
In an unsurprising story out of Denver, CO, 29-year-old Ethan Gaines says he’s “firmly against” the regulation of deepfakes, while simultaneously being the main reason why they should be regulated. “Deepfakes being regulated is an infringement upon my rights!” Ethan told reporters. “I should
Unfortunately, it's computer code and there is essentially nothing that can be done to prevent its use. They can only punish its users, and if we know anything about prohibition, it has (at best) zero effect to dissuade potential offenders.
I sincerely hope nobody uses it to generate porn of real people without their consent. With that said, it is highly likely if not absolutely certain that bolstering authority on this issue will have disasterous effects that last for generations. It only takes a brief glance over history to see why.
We have only barely held onto our digital freedom. They are trying to strip it at turn. Now it's "protect the kids" but we are witnessing the narrative shift in real time.
What I'm saying is don't be surprised if using open source software carries a prison sentence in first world countries in the near future.
I think you're assuming we're discussing regulating deep fakes (the software), when really everyone is talking about regulating deep fakes (, the use of).
... This is to say, making it illegal to generate life-like images and videos of celebrities, non-celebrities, and political figures without consent is in no way this doomsday scenario you say.
Defamation and libel are illegal. You can use open-source tools to perform defamation and libel, or you can use those same tools in a way that doesn't constitute defamation and libel.
It's foolish to think you can restrict one and not the other, and it's even more foolish to think our authoritarian governments would do that it they could
No matter how you turn it, though, AI will be disruptive to life as we know it. The question is how to handle it. No media outlets will be spared until we figure out a way of validating information.
My favourite vision is how an AI robocaller is chatting with an AI answering machine. But honestly, why have a phone at all? All your loved ones calling may just as well be deep fakes trying to scam you for money.
It is clear we need to do something to prepare, but what? As you say, the cat is already out of the bag, so how do we proceed from here? AntiAI-software in the same way we have antivirus software? Even open source self hosting wount be enough, somehow you need to validate who to trust. Even if it would be a start...
I really need a Poe’s Law check on this.
I’m shell-shocked from witnessing libertarian tech bros defending deepfake child porn, and I can longer distinguish earnest AI booster sentiment from satire.
Please give me a /s so I can sleep at night.
I hate that I still have to check out obvious satire to make sure it really is satire now.
The stock photo guy absolutely looks like the kinda person who would make some very... Uncomfortable deepfakes.
I would recommend not diving into these comments or else you're gonna find the real-world equivalent of the dude this article is making fun of.
Yikes.
Or did he?!
Lots of onions eaten in this comment section.
Just like Trump, everything he complains about is projection.
Ethan is showin up big time in these comments. Holy shit.
You know what? Fuck it. I'm not even into deepfakes. If someone wants to blast rope to me getting railed by waluigi then have at it. The future is now old man.
Ladies...
I don't use or frequently browse deep fakes and I don't think they should be regulated. Governments have never regulated the internet in a way that didn't have cascading negative effects elsewhere.
I believe it's a power grab. The more you regulate or force licensing costs on AI tools the harder it is to use without having large capital.
Meaning those with all the money can use AI while regular people or small companies or startups can't.
"Don't you know that our plans have your interest - not ours - in mind"?
Unironically if it's a struggle to understand why regulation of AI is far more dangerous than AI than I have a pair of boots to sell you. They go on your neck, and you'll be the one who asks for them to go there. But don't worry, they'll keep you safe, and if you don't unconditionally beleive me you are somehow wrong.
Only people who believe they'd benefit from regulating deepfakes are some high profile and/or internet narcissists.
"Boohoo someone made a video of Trump's hemorrhoids and Biden licking them" Everyone already knows you can easily fake some video without using "AI" for it, we have a whole fucking industry for it pumping hundred movies out every Saturday. We already know you shouldn't believe everything you see.
Goes a bit beyond that nowadays. Deep fakes can be used to create false evidence for example
Isn't faking evidence already illegal in more or less every jurisdiction though?
Okay but can you tell the difference between legal real evidence and illegal false evidence?
The technology is there to create this type of false evidence, it's not going back to the Pandora's box anymore. The truth is that you can't trust a single videotape as 100% evidence alone.
Oh hi Ethan
Didn’t expect him to show up and defend his own article lol