US Lawmakers Say AI Deepfakes 'Have the Potential To Disrupt Every Facet of Our Society' (theverge.com)

Yesterday, several lawmakers sent a letter to the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, asking him to assess the threat posed to national security by deepfakes -- a new type of AI-assisted video editing that creates realistic results with minimal effort. The Verge reports: The letter says "hyper-realistic digital forgeries" showing "convincing depictions of individuals doing or saying things they never did" could be used for blackmail and misinformation. "As deep fake technology becomes more advanced and more accessible, it could pose a threat to United States public discourse and national security," say the letter's signatories, House representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA), Stephanie Murphy (D-FL), and Carlos Curbelo (R-FL). The trio want the intelligence community to produce a report that includes descriptions of when "confirmed or suspected" deepfakes have been produced by foreign individuals (there are no current examples of this), and to suggest potential countermeasures. In a press statement, Curbelo said: "Deep fakes have the potential to disrupt every facet of our society and trigger dangerous international and domestic consequences [...] As with any threat, our Intelligence Community must be prepared to combat deep fakes, be vigilant against them, and stand ready to protect our nation and the American people."

Comments

Same as it ever was

[Tablizer]

Photos use to be considered "strong evidence", then Photoshop etc. came along to make doctoring cheap and common, and people stopped trusting photos. The same will happen to audio and video once they see enough fudged examples.

Re:Docoring photos is as old as photos themselves

[Dutch Gun]

In fact, the entire legal system uses nothing but scientifically invalid "proof"... Our legal system doesn't even remotely adhere to that.

The threshold for legal conviction in the US (and a few other countries) is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "absolute proof" for good reason. If you demand 100% proof, you would almost never convict anyone, and that wouldn't serve justice either. The legal system has to carefully balance the ability to obtain a conviction when warranted versus protection against false accusations. Real life tends to be a bit messier than a peer-reviewed scientific paper, and rarely deals in absolutes.