Second, what you wrote is out-of-date even if talking just about the (20) US states which do have deepfake laws, Politico article [0] discusses that there is very fragmented [US] state-level legislative and police response to US cases ("who gets [/doesn't get] disciplined, how minors are treated and who is responsible for taking images to the police — varies widely depending on the state.")
Third, it's quite likely that more US states (plus say NZ, Canada, EU countries et al.) will rush to legislate explicitly against deepfakes, cyberbullying, and possibly doxxing, given how fast technology is advancing.
Fourth, the tech industry, social-media companies, telecomm companies et al. will presumably try to come up with some common harmonized guidelines, because they operate in multiple countries. (But that gets us back to the ongoing CSAM - online privacy debate). Australian legislators will take a different approach to US ones on govt powers to scan people's images and messages, esp. without a warrant.
[0]: Politico: "AI is shockingly good at making fake nudes — and causing havoc in schools" https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/28/ai-deepfake-nudes-s...
> Third, it's quite likely that more US states (plus say NZ, Canada, EU countries et al.) will rush to legislate explicitly against deepfakes, cyberbullying, and possibly doxxing, given how fast technology is advancing.
This is just not going to happen without constitutional amendments, at least not in a way that sticks.
> "...at least not in a way that sticks."
The situation is changing very fast, faster than legislators can move. Even a bad law can give victims some power of legal discovery to prevent deepfake porn of them being made or published to public forums with the intent of harassing them. Equally they can also have a a chilling effect on (non-deepfake-porn) speech and set dangerous precedents.
I'd expect NZ, Canada and western EU countries will (or already are) rush out some legislation. In the US it will depend on the individual state; 20 already have some legislation, but per the article their laws vary hugely. The Canadian federal Privacy Commissioner is scrutinizing Pornhub (Aylo Holdings) for previously allowing material without adequately verifying consent.
All this area will surely be an active matter in policy-making, legislation and courts, ongoing: non-consensual deepfake porn and related issues (online identity rights, e.g. the Scarlett Johansson soundalike controversy), and the counterbalance on privacy and government intrusion.
A standard might emerge for digitally signing explicit photos/videos by multiple parties, allowing people to add or remove consent.
I.e. what's the point of OF models or porn actors if any "stunt double" or AI can do the deed, and you realistically put someone else's face on, or any face to your choosing/liking. Industry disrupted, value ruined, and yet again automation and AI taking over more of humanity's value.
I take it you have aphantasia then? I wouldn't say it's "not a metaphor," as it's clearly not literal, but yes, most of the population can see at least faint images in their minds with some effort or when unfocused (daydreaming). The detail of the image and effort required to contruct and maintain it exists on a spectrum. But yes, people with visual imaginations have all "seen" images that have never been physically produced.
Yes, I do. Which is why I am always fascinated by the many things I could never understand, or thought were metaphorical, that turn out to be literal for those who can visualize. Like, how my parents and teachers couldn't comprehend why I was bored out of my mind by books with lots of scenery descriptions (which I had to skip to stay with the book) - they said they were the beautiful, important, most enjoyable bits, that made the world vivid, etc. Turns out they are... if you have the ability to visualize stuff. Had I learned about aphantasia as a kid, instead of adult, it would've saved me a lot of heartache growing up.
You are free to produce this content in the comfort of your own home.
This is ultimately about compression, and the famous DeCSS t-shirt and illegal prime number[1].
Not taking a moral position here, but regulating distribution independently of creation for personal consumption seems difficult.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_prime...
IMO Australia desperately needs better protections of political speech but that has been debated for years and some people have the view that political speech is best protected at the ballot box.
Only a small minority of Australians would believe freedom of political speech should be extended to protect sexual abusers.
Australia is not close to being authoritarian. It is a liberal democracy with very fair elections. There is an unhealthy media concentration and our lopsided economy creates an environment where certain industries have too much political influence but that isn't unusual amongst our peers either and something we need to work on.
That "reminder" is incorrect