I don't see a problem with them. Can't we focus on more important (I mean actual) problems?
Why are you expressing annoyance about people focusing on the "unimportant" problem of than dealing with the fallout of "AI fake porn generators" than about other people causing these problems in the first place by focusing on the problem of generating faked porn. There's no real importance to generating this stuff.
I don't know what happens to journalism and misinformation at that point, but it's not good. State level actors have been doing this already. India just recently got caught putting cheeky smiles on the faces of protestors after being brutalized by police to suggest they were faking their distress for their cause.
1) everyone in the entire world learns about how easily things can be faked as quickly as possible
and
2) everyone has perfectly rational Vulcan control over the emotions this stuff would provoke on first view?
Social engineering is already not that hard, take a minute and imagine how something like this could be presented as a late step as part of a multi-step con to really fuck someone over.
So why are we pretending that making it easier to make more visceral and convincing versions of that won't have any bad effects? We already know that there are people who will try to advance their own interests like that, in what world does giving them more tools make their job harder somehow? "A sucker is born every minute" was said pre-computers, after all.
This is not an argument that I see people making. They're saying that sending deepfakes to your job is just plain harassment, and that the photograph, which is only thought of as evidence because it is difficult to fake, will have lost its value as evidence.
The invention of photography didn't make it easier to fake narratives, it made it harder.
"We regret to inform you that our entire database of full body scans was accessed and downloaded by unauthorized persons. We're providing you with a free year of online reputation repair services. We apologize for any inconvenience."
If they're naive enough to actually believe that image, you can just reply with one showing them in bed with your spouse. That should settle the matter.
... in a world where it is understood that fake realistic images are easy to be made then this is not any more credible than a text without pictures.
Let's say your boss received an anonymous email accusing you of being a pedophile. What's the difference here in the world where a deepfake is no harder to make than an anonymous email?
An anonymous email will probably be a hell of a lot harder to accomplish than a deepfake, actually.