[jmorrice]

When dealing with Western actors, this is symmetric warfare. If you are a political party and the opposition impersonates you, you could do the same back.

What concerns me is the asymmetric threat such as posed by North Korean dollar groups. For the uninitiated, this is a real threat but let's for a moment not think about the silliness of present day Communists getting extremely ruthless about stacking cash.

The model I'm concerned about is, say you have a NK hacker group and they make a very, very convincing video of a CEO doing something embarrassing (shout out a former UK PM's alleged porcine initiation ritual) with a view to making cash.

These people are focussed on the bottom line. They could structure their extortion demand to be F.O. money and get paid with little fuss. And do it over and over.

On the one hand the replicability of such attacks concerns me. However I have been considering a future where we are embarrassed or exposed to embarrassing content on an industrial scale.

Embarrassment is a social concept that we all deal with, and deal with it we do. It could be that the AI impersonation mess gets so bad we all become inoculated to this type of content because virtually everyone notable has become a victim already. Could it become the cost of doing business?

[Nevermark]

> When dealing with Western actors, this is symmetric warfare. If you are a political party and the opposition impersonates you, you could do the same back.

No it isn’t symmetric.

There is no balance between party A being fraudulent so party B now needs to be fraudulent.

In both cases, the public C is the victim.

A permissive tit for tat view of fraud, simply encourages an arms race of victimization.

Organized crime groups compete too. That competition doesn’t result in some kind of optimal societal impact balance in the absence of legal responses either.