- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Will AI fakes become illegal? RE Vance and Elon
Posted on 3/24/25 at 8:29 pm
Posted on 3/24/25 at 8:29 pm
Some people may not have seen it but there's an audio clip that claims to be Vance going after Elon. It wasn't provided with sourcing and came from a random TikTok account, iirc.
Fair piece from Newsweek on this audio - they make a good case that this is fake. Newsweek
I listened to the audio. I thought it was a poor, but real recording. These surreptitious recordings are generally bad. AI can now take a famous person's voice and apply it to any script that you write. Curious if posting fake speech made with AI will be protected under the First Amendment.
Side note - I believe there are some major suits taking place right now from big music labels going after AI music, the argument essentially being that AI can't create anything, it can only take bits and pieces of the things that are already out there, thus copyright issues. Not sure this will affect AI in regular speech contexts but it could be interesting.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fair piece from Newsweek on this audio - they make a good case that this is fake. Newsweek
I listened to the audio. I thought it was a poor, but real recording. These surreptitious recordings are generally bad. AI can now take a famous person's voice and apply it to any script that you write. Curious if posting fake speech made with AI will be protected under the First Amendment.
Side note - I believe there are some major suits taking place right now from big music labels going after AI music, the argument essentially being that AI can't create anything, it can only take bits and pieces of the things that are already out there, thus copyright issues. Not sure this will affect AI in regular speech contexts but it could be interesting.
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 8:43 pm to POTUS2024
An AI fake of a dead relative could be very powerful. Like a fake communication tool to heaven (or the afterlife if you will). Not a prediction but I think this will be used as a weapon by the Antichrist.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 8:43 pm to POTUS2024
I listened to the audio. I thought it was a poor, but real recording.
--
I also listened and called BS. My daughter played it for me and thought it was real.
--
I also listened and called BS. My daughter played it for me and thought it was real.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 8:45 pm to POTUS2024
It’s not protected speech if it defames or violates intellectual property rights.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 3/24/25 at 8:57 pm to POTUS2024
I'm not an expert on the subject of AI, but I've thought for a long time now that we could end up having a lot of trouble with AI on multiple fronts. Including some things they could do with advanced "robots" in the future. For example, and this is purely hypothetical, but could we possibly see highly-advanced and armed robots "policing" neighborhoods at some point? Especially if the Deep State/Globalists end up winning the battle between personal freedoms and tyranny?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 8:59 pm to KCT
quote:
but could we possibly see highly-advanced and armed robots "policing" neighborhoods at some point?
Please don't give my HOA any ideas.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:01 pm to KCT
quote:
I'm not an expert on the subject of AI, but I've thought for a long time now that we could end up having a lot of trouble with AI on multiple fronts. Including some things they could do with advanced "robots" in the future. For example, and this is purely hypothetical, but could we possibly see highly-advanced and armed robots "policing" neighborhoods at some point? Especially if the Deep State/Globalists end up winning the battle between personal freedoms and tyranny?
Armed robots are an inevitability, not matter who is in power. Just look how far Boston Dynamics has come.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 9:02 pm
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:21 pm to timdonaghyswhistle
quote:
but could we possibly see highly-advanced and armed robots "policing" neighborhoods at some point?
Please don't give my HOA any ideas.

Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:26 pm to POTUS2024
It's a long way off but the creation of a fake using AI, in my opinion, will not be protected speech and subject the maker to damages
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:33 pm to POTUS2024
It seems to me that the answer is clear. Any AI generated fake not clearly labeled as such would be, by definition, libelous against the person being faked. So not protected but actionable with potentially large liabilities involved. These would be civil liabilities, not criminal. The concept of libel already peacefully coexists with the First Amendment.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:51 pm to POTUS2024
quote:
Curious if posting fake speech made with AI will be protected under the First Amendment.
Is it illegal to do an impression?
Is it illegal to take someone's real words and alter the tape to make something different?
Will only AI be illegal or will all deceptive editing like the daily show or CBS where they show an answer to a different question? Or when they cut out context to make it sound worse?
Should all AI be banned or just the realistic ones?
Will AI like Dank Brandon be banned even though it is clearly a joke?
Will it be legal with a disclaimer? What if someone removes the disclaimer and transmits it? Is the original creator still liable?
If AI is going to be illegal, then shouldn't all manipulated media?
If AI makes something and I alter it slightly, is it still AI generated?
If I train the AI or write the code, will it be my creation then and therefore legal?
The content creator can upload it anonymously, so the people in trouble will be the ones sharing it. Will they be prosecuted for not knowing it was real?
There's going to be a huge can of worms if people try to ban specific AI content. If they can make it illegal to make certain content, it will open the door to many other types of banned content. I'm not always a fan of the slippery slope argument as a reason to not make changes, but this seems like a good application of it.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:59 pm to POTUS2024
Not an EO, take it down act.
quote:
TAKE IT DOWN Act Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 3/24/25 at 10:12 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
Another key issue that could be affected by the new administration’s desire to promote AI innovation is the question of the copyrightability of works generated with the use of AI. U.S. copyright law requires at least some human authorship for a work to be protected, which was confirmed in the recent Thaler v. Perlmutter case. However, the nature and extent of the human authorship required is not clear, as no cases have yet ruled on that issue in the context of AI. Nonetheless, in several recent decisions on registration,1 the U.S. Copyright Office has taken a very narrow view of protectability and has broadly refused protection for portions of a work that are generated by AI based on a lack of human authorship. The Copyright Office also issued guidance last year for protectability of AI-generated works that similarly takes a narrow view of the human authorship requirement and specifically takes the position that the human input that goes into creating prompts that generate AI output is not sufficient (regardless of how detailed the prompts may be). This leaves creators using AI tools without clear guidance on copyright protection for any portion of their works generated using AI.
quote:
The U.S. Copyright Office has been actively addressing the implications of AI on copyright law. After hosting public listening sessions and webinars and soliciting comments through a notice of inquiry (which received over 10,000 comments), the Copyright Office is preparing a Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, which is expected to be issued in three parts. In July 2024, they released Part 1, focusing on digital replicas/deepfakes. The forthcoming sections are expected to analyze copyrightability of generative AI output and the legal implications of training AI models on copyrighted works, including such issues as liability, licensing, and fair use.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 10:15 pm
Popular
Back to top
