[JohnMakin]

I think we're going to find out some uncomfortable lessons about our current interpretation of free speech being incompatible with the current generative AI technology. Strictly, I think the judge's ruling is correct - this is definitely a constitutional issue of free speech. However, one mistake people make frequently in these debates is that not all forms of speech are necessarily protected by law - for instance, you can't scream "Bomb" on an airplane without repercussions.

However, I don't see how or when the law ever catches up with this technology. It's never been illegal to present misinformation about a political candidate. Photoshopping a candidate has never been illegal. Clearly, this is something new and different, but what exactly? How does this get legislated without trampling all over existing precedent?

[rangestransform]

If photoshopping a candidate was legal and protected as free speech, why should this be any different? Talented Photoshop artists could create convincing fakes in a matter of hours in the 2000s, and just lets the average joe express his political opinions similarly with greater ease. There has never been any regulation to regulate free speech based on how easy it is to produce; if there were, we would've banned free speech with electronic amplification, free speech with a telegraph, free speech on the radio, free speech with a printing press, free speech with a printer, free speech on social media, only allowing communication methods that existed when the constitution was signed.

[JohnMakin]

It wouldn’t be different under the current interpretation of the law, I wasn’t saying that it is. In reality though, the scale and impact of this technology is far more significant and has far more potential to significantly disrupt society than photoshop - I think that much is very obvious. So in that case it is something new the law has not quite anticipated.

[rangestransform]

in the 2000s, we would've said the same thing about the ease of use and scale of photoshop for image doctoring too

[JohnMakin]

the scale and pervasiveness in which these things can spread now is many orders of magnitude more now. It isn’t an accurate comparison. also, I was there in the 2000’s, there wasn’t remotely the same amount of concern then, because these things are not the same

[rangestransform]

After each technological leap, it was an order of magnitude each time, and still the world hasn’t ended yet despite the handwringers at every stage of technological development

[jjk166]

That's debatable. There was a time when having something written on official-looking letterhead was considered authoritative; then it became trivially easy to generate letterhead and we found new ways to authenticate claims. Likewise for numerous other forms of evidence. Our present reliance on photos and videos and related media as the default presumed-authoritative form of evidence is a new phenomenon, and if it becomes unreliable we will move on to the next thing.

It's kind of ironic that the last major tech-bro fad was entirely about cryptographically secure, trustless verification of public data.

[reginald78]

I don't think there is anything fundamentally different. The only argument is scale and ease of use, but you could apply that to hiring poorly paid artists in a third world country somewhere like existing troll armies. A better question is would creating a law actually stop this? There's tons of ad fraud and misinformation already and my impression is the war is already lost. Most large platforms didn't have the kind of moderation to keep control of this kind of thing before. Small communities often do but they aren't usually the target and have less effect.

[opello]

There's also restriction around political speech already, if the objective is to influence the outcome of an election it must be paid for using campaign funds. And while the current design is rather laughable (magic words test, e.g. "vote for," "elect," etc.) maybe this move in technology presents an opportunity to refine the definition of "influence the outcome" to the overall benefit of the electorate.