TikTok ran a deepfake ad of an AI MrBeast hawking iPhones for $2 — and it’s the ‘tip of the iceberg’::As AI spreads, it brings new challenges for influencers like MrBeast and platforms like TikTok aiming to police unauthorized advertising.
The more I hear about AI-generated content and other crap that is posted online these days, I wonder if I should just start reading books instead, maybe even learn to play on a musical instrument and leave virtual world altogether.
Plagiarized books entirely written by an AI are nor far-fetched. Get ready for a shitty reality.
Why would AI need to write a plagiarized book? Isn’t that just a knock off?
Because writing a knockoff book takes time and effort, and getting an AI to do it does not.
The same question applies to many fields. Why get AI to write a plagiarized tweet or Reddit comment? It’s a lot less effort than a book, yet both platforms are plagued with bot comments.
There is already books written entirely by AI too, AI is litterly getting everywhere
I’m sure it’s also writing the music too.
And some forum comments.
Beep boop
And some forum comments.
Good thing concert tickets aren’t overpriced and only available via resale, so I can see humans perform human music.
Keep informed so you don’t buy AI-written books. Better know what’s going on instead of letting the world happen to you imo.
Everyone with a brain has been saying this would happen for the last decade, and yet there was no legislation put in place to target this behavior
Why does every law need to be reactionary? Why can’t we see a situation developing and get ahead of it by legislating the very obvious things it can be used for?
So, the first reason is that the law likely already covers most cases where someone is using deepfakes. Using it to sell a product? Fraud. Using it to scam someone? Fraud. Using it to make the person say something they didn’t? Likely falls into libel.
The second reason is that the current legislation doesn’t even understand how the internet works, is likely amazed by the fact that cell phones exist without the use of magic, and half of them likely have dementia. Good luck getting them to even properly understand the problem, never mind come up with a solution that isn’t terrible.
The problem is that realistically this kind of tort law is hilariously difficult to enforce.
Like, 25 years ago we were pirating like mad, and it was illegal! But enforcing it meant suing individual people for piracy, so it was unenforceable.
Then the DMCA was introduced, which defined how platforms were responsible for policing IP crime. Now every platform heavily automates copyright enforcement.
Because there, it was big moneybags who were being harmed.
But somebody trying to empty out everybody’s Gramma’s chequing account with fraud? Nope, no convenient platform enforcement system for that.
You’re saying that the solution would be to hold TikTok liable in this case for failing to prevent fraud on its platform? In that case, we wouldn’t even really need a new law. Mostly just repealing or adding exceptions to Section 230 would make platforms responsible. That’s not a new solution though. People have been pushing for that for years.
DMCA wasn’t a blanket “you’re responsible now”, but defined a specific process for “this is how you demand something is taken down and the process the provider must follow”.
IANAL, but can’t MrBeast sue the ad creator company for damaging his reputation?
Good luck with that, I guess This company is gone before misterB can finish writing his lawsuit, and with it all the scammed money. But I guess there is some law forcing platforms to not promote scams, I hope, at least in some countries.
Huh TIL that the average age of the Senate and the House has steadily increased over time: https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/118th-congress-age-third-oldest-1789-rcna64117
Hope more learn soon and finally vote for some young people, damit 😁✌🏻
yet there was no legislation put in place to target this behavior
Why is the solution to every problem outlawing something?
“We need to do something about prostitution. Let’s outlaw it!”
“We need to do something about alcohol. Let’s outlaw it!”
“We need to do something about drugs. Let’s outlaw them!”
“We need to do something about gambling. Let’s outlaw it!”
All of it… a bunch of miserable failures, which have put good people in prison and turned our whole country into a goddamn police state. You can’t outlaw technology without international treaties to make sure every other country follows suit. That barely works with nuclear weapons, and only because two cities exploded by the bombs and at least a couple decades of being afraid of a nuclear apocalypse.
What the hell do you think is going to happen if we make moves on AI? China takes the lead, does what it wants, and suddenly, it’s the far superior superpower. The end.
Hell, how do we know this isn’t China propaganda running on China’s propaganda platform?
How is making it illegal to steal a person’s face and make them say things they never agreed to going to make China an AI super power?
Not gonna lie my dude you have a luke warm take
It’s already illegal to impersonate someone to steal money. It’s called fraud.
AI is going to cause huge problems (I am really worried about how things are going to shake out) but I’m also not convinced writing special laws about it is going to change anything. We do need to make sure our current laws don’t have loopholes that AI can somehow exploit.
It’s fraud to use it for financial gain, however it’s not illegal to directly copy someone’s likeness for non business uses.
You can legally make videos of people saying or doing things that hadn’t, and as this technology gets more advanced we will see more of its effects. Politics will be very tricky when you can upload a video of Presidents or candidates saying literally anything.
Not only that, but make someone commit a crime on camera? Even if you aren’t trying to get them prosecuted, it could lead to severe issues. You could ruin someone’s career by making them scream slurs at someone in a Starbucks or make videos of them being abusive to their families.
You can argue its slander and libel, but where does that fall into AI? What’s the line? What if I make a joke song with someone’s voice? What if I make a joke video that has them doing horrible things? What’s the line?
Slander and libel laws don’t have clearer distinctions when it comes to AI voice and video synth
I also think there should be distinctions here. This isn’t just slapping someone’s face onto an ad with a fake quote, this is creating a video of them saying something they never said using a technology that doesn’t just inch closer, but makes leaps and bounds towards being indistinguishable from reality
in most countries you cannot. Making a fake of someone saying something they didn’t is slander at the minimum.
You can argue its slander and libel, but where does that fall into AI? What’s the line? What if I make a joke song with someone’s voice? What if I make a joke video that has them doing horrible things? What’s the line?
Trashing someone’s reputation I would imagine, especially if they’re a public figure that relies on their reputation monetarily.
These laws require that there is intent to cause harm to a reputation
How do you deal with cases where these AI cause damage financially but you can’t prove or prosecute on intent?
IANAL, but not asking for permission to use their image/persona shows intent?
How is making it illegal to steal a person’s face and make them say things they never agreed to going to make China an AI super power?
One, fraud is already illegal, and there’s plenty of other laws to use in this situation. And none of those laws apply to other countries. A country like China doesn’t give a shit, and will gladly use AI to dupe American audiences into whatever they want to manipulate.
Two, as soon as you ask Congress to enact some law to defend against the big bad AI monster under your bed, it’s going to go one of two ways:
- They push some law that’s so toothless that it doesn’t really do anything except limit the consumer and put even more power into the corporations.
- They push a law so restrictive that other countries take advantage of the situation and develop better AI than we have. And yes, a technology this important has the ability to give one country a huge advantage.
It’s an arms race right now. Either we adapt to these situations with enforcement, education, and containment, or other countries will control our behaviors through manipulation and propaganda. More laws and legislation is not going to magically fix the problem.
Copyright infringement was also already illegal, but mass copyright infringement on major platforms didn’t really get handled until the DMCA came out with specific responsibilities for how platforms had to handle copyright infringement.
Like, if you let 15 seconds of the wrong pop-song appear in a YouTube vid they will come after you because YouTube has to avoid being liable for that infringement, but the phone companies can let scammers run rampant without consequence.
At no point did you come anywhere close to anything that can be considered a rational thought
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Are you seriously comparing alcohol. To people stealing someone’s likeness to commit fraud?
That’s already illegal though
If you can prove it. Which takes time and money. It would be far better to update laws to keep up with our tines and put a stop to it before it begins.
What’s being done to Mr Beast, and also Tom Hanks. Is nothing short of Identify theft.
This is the entire basis of using an adblocker like ublock origin. It is purely defensive. You don’t know what an advertising (malvertising) network will deliver, and neither does the website you’re on (Tiktok, Google, Yahoo, eBay, etc etc etc). With generative AI and video ads and the lack of content checking on the advertising network this will just get worse and worse. I mean, why spend money on preventing this? The targeted ads and user data collection is where the money’s at, baby!
Related note, installing uBO on my dad’s PC some 8 years ago was far more effective than any kind of virus scanner or whatever. Allowing commerce on the Internet was a mistake. That’s the root of all this bullshit, anyway.
Honestly ads aren’t that bad when done right. For instance, the yellow pages had ads but they didn’t follow you wherever you went. We need ads that people want to look at. If I’m trying to find something g to buy I don’t mind looking at an ad. I just don’t want it to be everywhere and end up being malious
We need ads that people want to look at
Welcome to the pro-data-collection team! We’re wildly unpopular online.
Yellow pages is not targeted advertising. We need static content
Static content is literally the opposite of “ads people want to see”
Although I’d say a good 99% of all ads are terrible, I have yet to find any that are absolutely egregious when visiting sites like FurAffinity. Totally depends on the site and what ad services they chose or are forced into if they have ads. Also where and they are placed.
I never thought of it in security terms but that makes sense. If nothing else, having it installed makes for a better web experience.
Allowing commerce
on the Internetwas a mistake. That’s the root of all this bullshit, anyway.That’s more accurate.
You can’t put everything back in Pandora’s Box. Right or wrong this is the world we live in. What is lacking is regulation. If left to their own devices we (royal) are shitheels. Unfortunately we (royal) are persistent shitheels which is why when we put in regulations we then strive to rip them out.
Do you mean “we (humans)”? Because “the royal we” just means “I”. Like how the queen says “we are not amused” when they mean “I don’t like it”. Related to how in many European languages (including early-modern and older English) the plural is a polite form of address (like tu and vous in French, du and sie in German, thou and you in English)
I read this title last night and thought it was a story about AI making an amalgamation of MrBeast and Stephen Hawking to shill iPhones
I mean, that’s why I clicked
Simpsons called it:
Butlerian jihad sounds like a good idea rn
No.
We need the AIs to make the Men of Gold so we can compete with the murder orgy space elves.
Can Mr Beast sue til tok over this?
Section 230 will absolutely reign here.
No, Section 230 protects TikTok as a platform. He would have to sue the ad creator.
Bro I still don’t know who MrBeast is.
This does not end until anonymity on the internet does. As long as nobody signs their content, nobody can be blamed for pooping in the punch bowl.
And that’s why I have conspiracy theories about the conspiracy theories about digital ID.
