[3np]

This is pretty concerning, if not scary:

> “users of AI systems who use the same to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places or other entities or events and would falsely appear to a reasonable person to be authentic [or truthful], shall disclose that the content has been artificially created or manipulated. This obligation shall not apply where necessary for the purposes of safeguarding public security [and other prevailing public interests] or for the exercise of a legitimate right or freedom of a person and subject to appropriate safeguards for the rights and freedoms of third parties.”.

So, if "for the public good", it's all good for government and others to fake all they want without disclosing that manipulation has taken place.

[GuB-42]

Weird exceptions indeed. I don't know in which case it would apply.

To me, it just sounds like this is a "low priority" law.

For example, if you are allowed to use deception, for example in the context of a criminal investigation, or if a citizen needs to protect himself, then the new law doesn't change that fact.

[openfuture]

It's incredible that "safeguarding public security" is unqualified, there should be a law that specifies exactly how such things are evaluated or it should be forbidden to put such loopholes in law.

My respect for law as a field of study is starting to be around the same as my respect for finance as a legitimate business.

The people who actually study how to write law are mathematicians (including to various extent the applied mathematicians, which range from programmers through engineers and all the way to the probability theorists a.k.a. "scientists").

One day I hope we can clear up the misunderstanding in our society about the extent of our reliance on mathematics and stop acting as if "we cannot engineer solutions to social problems" - these glorified scammers that write the law and run the economy are the cancer that is killing everything.