Are we now going to be held liable for deepfakes we didn't make?
I'm surprised people aren't using this more for divorces and what not. Create a deepfake of your wife and then say "Here's proof my wife was cheating"
There is for example no statement under oath from Elon, “that video was a fake, that absolutely never happened.” Even without that, there is no paper trail of “my client maintained a very consistent messaging that this was not fully autonomous driving and you need to always be vigilant... this isolated clip is so strange that we need to seriously entertain the idea that it was deepfaked.” That sort of stuff.
Regarding the faithful wife accused of cheating, I mean, there are lots of valid ways to investigate. First questions are “where did this video come from, where do you believe it was filmed, why do you believe it is your wife rather than someone who happens to look a lot like her,” etc. ... Normally a PI would be claiming “I followed her to so-and-so motel, I took this video legally from outside” and even then you might get objections from a decent divorce lawyer, “this is a two-party consent state and my client didn't consent, this is unlawful surveillance,” yadda yadda yadda. But for a deepfake you have all those objections and more.
One way that courts deal with it is enhanced scrutiny on disputed evidence. Like, if you show up to a court with a document that you claimed someone signed, and they claim they didn't sign it, then the court can keep digging until they figure out who is lying. They can look for witnesses. They can subpoena records from internet companies that may have been involved in a digital transmission of that document. And so on. It's still possibly to lie to courts and manufacture evidence, but most people are not going to cover their tracks well enough to do so without getting caught if the full force the court's scrutiny is turned on them.
And the court finding out you lied to it is very very bad for whatever case you were trying to make.
good luck doing that without severely deep pockets
How do we prove authentic? Same way we prove that a website we visit is authentic. Every recording made will be signed/hashed and be able to validate of the public key of the recording device (every phone will have a key). White House, News Orgs, etc. all will use cameras with public keys so everyone can validate. As soon as only one pixel or frequency changes, it will be invalid/fake.
In the end, all will be even more trustworthy than today (there will be some kind of signed/verification label on every video/audio/media that is original/valid).
So the same thing should be the standard for video. Someone shows a video of you doing something. Either say under penalty of perjury, that you did not do that, and then the authenticity of the video can be looked into, or the video will be accepted as authentic. You don't get a preemptive "this could be fake, so lets ignore it".
I wonder if there is any traction in the industry towards making this happen?
And God help you if they discover you manufactured evidence. Manufacturing evidence raises the stakes considerably. It makes any crime instantly more heinous, proves you deliberately had bad intention. You might go in thinking you’ll win easily with manufacturerd evidence and come out with greater felonies and complete eradication of your reputation.
You think you might be so fucking smart using off the shelf components to make yourself a deep fake, rest assured there are always people smarter than you out there. Intellects vast and deep that will easily pierce through your lies and destroy you. Do not attempt to provoke them. They will relish in picking your remains apart.
This is a ridiculous comment
No fault divorce makes it kind of pointless to use in divorces.
Are audio/video recordings I take with my phone going to be useless in a decade because deepfakes are virtually indistinguishable and there is no "additional confirmation"?
Point being, it'll take more than just looking at the source image/video/audio for signs of AI manipulation, because soon enough, all recordings will be AI-manipulated before even hitting persistent storage.
In other words: everything will be deepfake by default, and the issue will turn into telling which deepfakes were done to lie about substantial aspects of reality pertinent to the case, and which ones were made to enhance some non-relevant qualities (aesthetics, compressibility, etc.).
Lots of ways to sign photos and videos today that should make them fully verifiable in the future (assuming public/private key cryptography remains secure). For stuff that isn't signed, it's not like good old detective work can't verify in a lot of cases. Phone records, eye witnesses, additional unpublished recordings, etc.
Also being verified really only matters when it comes to "truth" as defined by law. It's not like your family won't enjoy your videos of Christmas '23.