back to article 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 …

  1. Winkypop Silver badge

    If you’re using Meta to get your news

    Then you’ve already given up on facts.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: If you’re using Meta to get your news

      If you are using any anti-social media to get your news without verifying elsewhere, you've never really understood what the word "facts" means.

      Anti-social media is not a facts gathering source, rather it is a garbage sink.

      1. Winkypop Silver badge

        Re: If you’re using Meta to get your news

        Indeed

  2. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Forked tonque

    > 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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Forked tonque

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Forked tonque

        "They are all a bunch of useless self serving wan*ers"

        Please note, this statement might not be true.

        (But people love generalising and exaggerating don't they. Ironic really considering what they are complaining about).

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Forked tonque

          "Please note, this statement might not be true."

          True enough. Presumably you have at least one example. Please, do enlighten us.

        2. TheMaskedMan Silver badge

          Re: Forked tonque

          "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.

    2. cmdrklarg

      Re: Forked tonque

      To heck with that; make the shysters tell the effing truth!

  3. Groo The Wanderer Silver badge

    Politicians already lie through their teeth when they make accusations about their opponent(s.)

    What is changing?

    1. jake Silver badge

      "Politicians already lie through their teeth.

      "What is changing?"

      FTFY

  4. jake Silver badge

    "and Chai Research's Eliza chatbot"

    Eliza? How ... um ... original.

    One wonders if they asked it "What is a good name for an AI chatbot?" ... and were too fucking ignorant about the history of the field to realize what ELIZA was.

  5. TheMaskedMan Silver badge

    "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.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like