reason.com: Mixing new technology and new laws is always a fraught business, especially if the tech in question relates to communication. Lawmakers routinely propose bills that would sweep up all sorts of First Amendment-protected speech. We've seen a lot of this with social media, and we're starting to see it with artificial intelligence. Case in point: the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications (No AI FRAUD) Act.
7 comments:
This No AI Fraud Act seems to be a bit too far reaching. I feel like it is important to make policies in order to prevent people from using AI to create life-like depictions of people without their permission. I agree that it is completely incorrect that people are using AI to make videos of celebrities endorsing things that they did not agree to. However, this current AI is going way beyond that. I feel like there is no need to ban the use of parodies of people’s voices, especially when it is clear to the audience that the actual person they are imitating is not actually them. This is a completely different issue. Sketch-comedy kits, political cartoons, and depictions of historical figures in movies are an extremely large part of our media and ways in which people express themselves and comment on society. This would change a lot of unnecessary things, while not really addressing all of the other issues with AI. It seems like they are stretching this Act for other issues and outside benefits.
I think the “No AI Fraud Act” won’t get passed without major readjustments because of the broad nature of like-ness in art that has already been done/will continue to be made. I think parody skits, memes, and theater that uses the likeness of famous people with the bill’s current state will put an end to media that does not need to be illegal. However I do agree that some AI content should be illegal such as, as the article pointed out, political figures being manipulated via AI to say or do things as that can seriously affect the way they’re perceived if the video is believable, using the likeness of anyone’s voice or body for malicious intent is also an issue that I agree should not be allowed. It’s a hard line to draw and I think the bill would be better suited if it specified the “ill intent” as the cut off for using AI and real identities because then it could be a court by court basis instead of a huge ban on media that would be difficult to back-track and understand what falls within its parameters.
It's almost entirely inevitable that if this bill passed in the House, Senate, and the Presidency that it would very quickly appear before the Supreme Court who, despite the conservative shift on the bench, would most likely strike the bill/law down as unconstitutional as it, in it's current form, directly opposes both the constitution and previous SCOTUS cases. You can't just say, "First Amendment protections apply", then go on to try and limit First Amendment Protections. The broadness of this bill boggles the mind, especially because a lot of the things it tries to limit aren't specific to AI. When you try to curb the use of AI, you inadvertently heavily reduce the freedoms that this country touts to uphold. This is all assuming that this bill would in any way be passed which is severely unlikely. No politician in their right mind would support this bill in its unaltered form or risk being voted out by their constituents.
It seems as though the 'No AI Fraud Act,' if it somehow manages to get passed, would not solve many of the issues it is aiming to fix and instead would only create more. While reading this, I saw some parallels to California's Proposition 65 warnings. While Prop 65 warnings were created to be helpful, they are far too broad, to the point where they are largely not taken seriously. I am worried that this AI act could potentially have a similar issue - it is incredibly broad and bans content in so many areas, that I feel like people just won't care about it all too much. I am a big believer in AI restrictions and do see it as an issue that will only continue to grow, but this is just simply not the way to create policy surrounding it. I think the most successful method would be to start with some restrictions on AI and build up from there, as opposed to this, which starts with massive restrictions that reach too far.
Artificial intelligence development and the political responses are so fun to follow. At the beginning of last year, I remember writing comments on articles that were about AI copying famous artists; it’s kind of scary to think how quickly it’s learned and progressed. I have been seeing more and more AI generated content recently, both visual and auditorial, and at least for AI voices there’s definitely been a shift away from the voices of characters like Squidward and towards celebrities or other real people, like Joe Biden. I don’t think the AI Fraud Act is perfect, nor do I think any other previously proposed suggestion has been perfect. In my opinion, the government should put a hold on AI until they can get things under control, but I’m sure that comes with a lot of hurdles that I don’t know about, and our government doesn’t move as fast as AI anyways.
I always worry that whenever the United States adds more protections against AI, that some company or hostile government will double down on AI all the more. I think that because of the sheer vastness of the internet, it makes it extremely difficult to manage exactly how these AI tools are developing. I think that we should maintain control over the most sophisticated models, even if it means compromising on some other issues. I think that this bill is too broad, with too little protections for the people who are actually making the AI models. It’s going to be interesting to see how the first amendment factors into all of this-as it's not illegal to do some of the things that are mentioned in this bill, and I think that making it illegal would infringe on the rights of citizens. I hope that this bill is able to be worked through and changed from its current form into something a bit better for everyone.
I honestly do not know how I feel about this. I can see both sides of the argument. I understand that people should not be able to steal another person's voice or image. I think that is just a disrespectful and bad thing to do. However, I also can see the side that by passing this act it would be violating the first amendment. I think personally my beliefs line up with the act with a few exceptions. I think that things such as impersonations are ok. I think they are a form of art, maybe not as traditional, but that takes talent and becomes a performance art on its own. And if I remove my personal beliefs I think it would be really difficult to argue that this is not violating the first amendment. But honestly I really do not know. I see both sides and I will be interested to see what happens.
Post a Comment