Well those laws clearly don't work. So we should make new laws! Ones that DEFINITELY WILL work! And if they don't, well I guess we just need more laws until we find ones that do.

This is not at all about protecting children. That's just manipulation. In truth, kids are more likely to prosecuted than protected by this bill.

There are already laws that could be used against teen bullies but it's rarely done. (IMHO it would create more harm than good, anyway.)

This is part of an effort to turn the likenesses of people into intellectual property. Basically, it is about more money for the rich and famous.

This bill would even apply to anyone who shares a movie with a sex scene in it. It's enough that the "depiction" is "realistic" and "created or altered using digital manipulation". Pretty much any photo nowadays, and certainly any movie, can be said to "altered using digital manipulation". There's no mention of age, deception, AI, or anything that the PR bullshit suggests.

Regulatory capture. OpenAI wants to kick down the ladder

It’s not trolling it’s bullying. You need to think beyond this being about “porn”. This is a reputational attack that makes the victim more likely to be further victimised via date rape, stalking, murder. These things already happen based on rumours, deepfakes images/videos will only make it worse. The other problem is that it’s almost impossible to erase once it’s on the internet, so the victim will likely never be free of the trauma or danger as the images/videos resurface.

I hope it won't overregulate technology itself but instead would be ruled by already existing means about defaming people and taking photoes without their consent, sharing them. Plus, if she's a teen, it's a production of CSAM. This person had an illegal intent, just used a new tool not unlike others, just more efficient.

Surely deepfakes will be just different enough to the subject to create reasonable doubt that it depicts the subject.

That's a major assumption. Do people really think a school board will really consider that when a student creates a fake Only Fans of a teacher? A random University or Company doesn't even give reason for denying an application when they see any form of online nudity? People are lazy as fuck and will just move on to the next candidate or let someone go to save their own image rather than that off the victim.

I think it doesn't go far enough. Straight up, no one should be permitted to create or transmit the likeness of anyone [prior to, say, 20 years following their death] without their explicit, written permission. Make the fine $1,000,000 or 10% of the offender's net worth, whichever is greater; same penalty and corporate revocation for any corporation involved. Everyone involved from the prompt writer to the work-for-hire people should be liable for the full penalty. I can't think of a valid, non-entertainment (parody/humor), reason for non-consensual impersonation - and using it for humor or parody is a slippery slope to propaganda weaponization. There is no baby in this tub of bathwater.

I think you're right if the goal is to stop them all together.

But what we can do is stop people from sending them around and saying that it's true/actually the person.

Once they've turned it from a art project into a weapon, it should have similar consequences to "revenge porn."

My dude there are people out there thinking they're in a relationship with Johnny fucking Depp because some Nigerian scammer sent them five badly photoshopped pictures. Step out of your bubble, maybe. This shit isn't easy to spot for the vaaaaaast majority of people and why would this lie with the victim to sort of clear their name or hope that idiots realize it's fake?

Especially with and around teenagers who can barely think further than their next meal?

Good lord.

Just tell them the 2nd amendment guaranteed your rights to Gaussian Splatting.

People said the same thing when, after the printing press, there was rampant plagiarism and reverse-plagiarism (attributing words to someone who never said them).

After a period of epistemic chaos, the result was several decades of chartered monopoly and government censorship to get it under control.

I hope we won't need heavy-handed regulation this time around. But that will only happen if we learn from history. We need to get this under control now, while we have the chance to start a framework for protecting our fellow human beings from harm. Complaining that it's hard is not an excuse for doing nothing.

Just ban any instance of generative unconsentual generative nudity, AI or not.

I mean, they do usually effect the people that break them and go to prison too.

It's like how DRM only hurts people who purchase content legally.

It's been very illegal to pirate games for decades, and still pirated content is quite common in the wild. What's banning it (defamation) harder going to practically achieve?

Isn't that... all laws?

Might as well not make any laws then.

How? How will this only effect people who follow laws? If you aren't making ai porn of real underage girls how would this affect you, a law abiding citizen?

the text of the bill exempts service providers from any liabilities as long as they make a good faith attempt to remove it as soon as they are aware of its existence. So if someone makes AI generated revenge porn on your instance as long as you take it down when notified, you want be in trouble.

What does the method matter? If the result is an artifact that is convincing enough for the average person to believe that the subject knowingly posed for sex acts that never occurred, the personal experience and social stigma is traumatizing no matter how it was made.

As the sociologist Brooke Harrington puts it, if there was an E = mc^2^ of social science, it would be SD > PD, “social death is more frightening than physical death.”