Why should it be different if they use a different tool to create the picture?
In any case there shouldn’t be any difference I would imagine. There’s already precedent in United States, but circumstances matter.
Yes, exactly, and by asking these sort of questions we can clarify what that scale is, exactly.
When exactly does a "firecracker" turn in to a "bomb"? What are any objective difference between the two? etc.
Here is some deepfake porn I just created of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton:
\ Õ /
\ | /
|
----D <-----O
/ \ /| \
/ \ / | \
Level of realism?
A deepfake is a deepfake because it is a synthetic ("fake") image that depicts a real person/thing and is the output of a program that utilises deep learning.
Its not deepfake at all, much less very good deepfake.
“Deepfake” has a meaning, and its not the same as just “fake”.
The audience for that seems limited to malicious weirdos who already have zero respect for the victim. Any influence it might have on their opinions seems irrelevant.
Of course, this has no bearing on the personal violation one feels when exposed to this sort of abuse. But for deepfake porn to somehow influence public perception is hard for me to grasp. Are there any examples of real reputational damage stemming from this?
The potential consequences of such a revelation that “they might’ve been a pornographic actor” could give rise to a future scandal during an election. Even the slightest insinuation of involvement in the adult entertainment industry can inflict significant damage, particularly for women.
We’re actually seeing AI-generated imagery being used more and more in political propaganda (eg https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/technology/ai-elections-d...). It’s not unreasonable to think this will become a major point in a future election, even if it hasn’t yet.
I ask again, is there any evidence that such allegations have ever been taken seriously?
I can't see fake porn having any reach, except amongst low-IQ consumers of internet trash, who are not only susceptible to obvious propaganda, but are already politically aligned against the victim.
Other AI generated content may have more impact, but that's another conversation.
You seem to have made your mind and no further discussion is possible.
On the topic of people believing outlandish things on whimsy evidence: Plenty of people were convinced Hillary Clinton was running an underground child pornography ring in a pizza basement based on paintings hung in someone’s house.
Maybe they were all politically aligned against her from the start, or maybe they weren’t and it affected the 2016 election. How would we know?
While no poll is 100% accurate, as long as you make it statistically significant and introduce a good control (say multiple fake and real stories, with some of them positive too), you'll get good signal and ability to say exactly if it did affect the election.
That could be construed as satisfying the critical legal element of a defamation claim:
1) a false statement purporting to be fact.
If someone were to draw a watercolor painting of a likeness of a President one doesn't like having sex with an equally despised congresswoman, most would agree that this is a classic "free speech issue" and is the very sort of protected speech that first ammendment clearly protects.
Ignoring tangential issues, like the copyright of the images used in the "deep fake", how is this situation any different?
That notion is going to have to die, and soon.
You would be wrong; there are many legal issues which can protect identifiable people from having their likeness used, especially if it is (1) without consent and (2) in a "private place" (or depicted in an intimate/private situation).
The person whose likeness is used would very much have recourse to sue, whether it's the painter of a watercolor or someone who generates a deepfake. The same principles apply.
Also, the "traditional wholesome art mediums" thing is a bit weird to use for an argument, to me anyway. The act is made much more disturbing and violent owing to the image being created by hand, with care and attention.
The post I replied to introduced the term 'violated'. It asks "are you as violated?" -- you'll note that 'as' being present indicates that something can be more or less violated -- it was also their assumption that in either case there would be some amount of violation felt. My reply to their post is based on the framework that they established. Take it up with them.
To take action with intent to harm another is violence. To (seek to) inflict damage, destruction, pain or suffering is violent.