Rather than trying to "enforce silence," California officials would be better off combating deepfakes with "more speech," Mendez said. "Especially as to political speech, counter speech is the tried-and-true buffer and elixir, not speech restriction."
While I generally subscribe to this mantra, it is also worth emphasizing that arming humans with more critical thinking skills, education, etc. is also necessary to protect us from ourselves.
> Is a video of Musk and Trump dancing to "stayin' alive" a deepfake?
Yes, if it's being presented as a recording of an event that actually happened (meaning that there's a lack of an obvious warning that it's fictional). Otherwise, no.
Rather than trying to "enforce silence," California officials would be better off combating deepfakes with "more speech," Mendez said. "Especially as to political speech, counter speech is the tried-and-true buffer and elixir, not speech restriction."
While I generally subscribe to this mantra, it is also worth emphasizing that arming humans with more critical thinking skills, education, etc. is also necessary to protect us from ourselves.
I agree on both points.
With deepfakes, though, I don't think of them as legitimate speech. I think of them as outright fraud, and fraud has never been protected speech.
I wonder if you are baking fraud into your definition of deepfakes, and deepfakes are distinct for "AI generated content".
Is a video of Musk and Trump dancing to "stayin' alive" a deepfake?
If fraud has never been protected, shouldn't clearly fraudulent AI content already be actionable? I think
> Is a video of Musk and Trump dancing to "stayin' alive" a deepfake?
Yes, if it's being presented as a recording of an event that actually happened (meaning that there's a lack of an obvious warning that it's fictional). Otherwise, no.