[mullingitover]

> I feel it would be a lot more sensible and effective to legislate clear and present harms, such as holding developing firms liable for deep-fake technology if used for identity theft for the purpose of fraud.

s/deep-fake/photoshop

Deepfakes are simply more convenient photo/video/audio editing that has been around for decades[1], and we don't really need new legislation to deal with them. Fraud/defamation/etc, the actual harmful aspects of what can be accomplished with deepfakes, don't need any new updates to handle the technology. If we're going to hobble new technologies, we may as well go back and hold Adobe responsible for all the shady things people have done with Photoshop, and video/audio editing suites for all the deceptive clips people have spliced together.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La5jrfobfTM&t=1s

[gary_0]

s/photoshop/airbrush

I vaguely recall seeing some fairly convincing B&W Soviet-era photos (I think they had Stalin in them) where people were removed and other people moved around to fill the gap. And document forgery for the purposes of fraud and espionage has of course been around for centuries.

But I think the issue is less the capability itself, and more that companies will make it too easy (trivial, actually) for anyone to commit mischief. The ability to mass-manipulate images on command is no longer restricted to the General Secretary of the USSR.

That doesn't necessarily mean regulation is required, though--plenty of modern technologies make it very easy to commit crimes, but only some of them require special rules.