Meta has nothing to say about politicians making deepfaked ads Meta has declined to detail how it will treat AI-generated deepfake content that appear on its social media platforms. Meta reportedly flags deepfakes as content to be handled by fact checkers rather than seeking a tech fix to detect manipulated media. Content posted by politicians, however, is considered protected speech. So …
> Content posted by politicians, however, is considered protected speech
Not just that but in the UK the Advertising Standards Agency specifically omits political statements from having to be true.
Maybe this should be added to all political claims. Much like the health warnings on cigarette packets. Something along the lines of This statement does not have to be true
Something the Labour party has recently taken advantage of, descending into the gutter throwing mud at Sunak. There is plenty of true stuff to give the Tories grief over, without making sh1t up. It was my intention to vote Labour this time around; now I'll just be marking my ballot paper "X None of the above". They are all a bunch of useless self serving wan*ers.
"But people love generalising and exaggerating don't they. Ironic really considering what they are complaining about"
They do indeed, but, on the face of the evidence, that may not be so in this case. A glance along the front benches on both sides of the house, and a browse through the newspapers over a reasonable period, strongly suggests that the initial assessment is bang on.
"The mayor of a well-to-do rural locale outside of Melbourne, Australia threatened to sue OpenAI for defamation last week, if false claims made by its ChatGPT model that said he went to prison for bribery were not corrected."
I can understand the guy's disgruntlement, and of course steps should be taken to correct the error. An apology might also be in order.
But it does raise some interesting questions. If an AI can't hold copyright in materials it produces, and neither can the person prompting the AI, can the AI publish defamatory statements? I suppose, in the sense that it has made an untrue statement which is likely to lower the claimant's standing in the eyes of right minded individuals, it can. Clearly, the software can't be liable, and the obvious next target is the company that made it.
But what about the person who wrote the prompt that induced the thing to produce the statement? Perhaps, in the first instance, they would not know what the outcome would be. But, having read about the impending sueball, you can bet that quite a few more have toddled over to chatGPT to try it out for themselves. Are they not knowingly causing a new publication every time they run the query?
I foresee a whole new chapter in Gatley on Libel and Slander any minute now.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
