Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
AI Government

Scarlett Johansson Calls For Deepfake Ban After AI Video Goes Viral (people.com) 53

Posted by BeauHD from the enough-is-enough dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from People: Scarlett Johansson is urging U.S. legislators to place limits on artificial intelligence as an unauthorized, A.I.-generated video of her and other Jewish celebrities opposing Kanye West goes viral. The video, which has been circulating on social media, opens with an A.I. version of Johansson, 40, wearing a white T-shirt featuring a hand and its middle finger extended. In the center of the hand is a Star of David. The name "Kanye" is written underneath the hand.

The video contains A.I.-generated versions of over a dozen other Jewish celebrities, including Drake, Jerry Seinfeld, Steven Spielberg, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Black, Mila Kunis and Lenny Kravitz. It ends with an A.I. Adam Sandler flipping his finger at the camera as the Jewish folk song "Hava Nagila" plays. The video ends with "Enough is Enough" and "Join the Fight Against Antisemitism." In a statement to PEOPLE, Johansson denounced what she called "the misuse of A.I., no matter what its messaging." Johansson continued: "It has been brought to my attention by family members and friends, that an A.I.-generated video featuring my likeness, in response to an antisemitic view, has been circulating online and gaining traction. I am a Jewish woman who has no tolerance for antisemitism or hate speech of any kind. But I also firmly believe that the potential for hate speech multiplied by A.I. is a far greater threat than any one person who takes accountability for it. We must call out the misuse of A.I., no matter its messaging, or we risk losing a hold on reality."

"I have unfortunately been a very public victim of A.I.," she added, "but the truth is that the threat of A.I. affects each and every one of us. There is a 1000-foot wave coming regarding A.I. that several progressive countries, not including the United States, have responded to in a responsible manner. It is terrifying that the U.S. government is paralyzed when it comes to passing legislation that protects all of its citizens against the imminent dangers of A.I."

The statement concluded, "I urge the U.S. government to make the passing of legislation limiting A.I. use a top priority; it is a bipartisan issue that enormously affects the immediate future of humanity at large."

Johansson has been outspoken about AI technology since its rise in popularity. Last year, she called out OpenAI for using an AI personal assistant voice that the actress claims sounds uncannily similar to her own.

Scarlett Johansson Calls For Deepfake Ban After AI Video Goes Viral More | Reply

Scarlett Johansson Calls For Deepfake Ban After AI Video Goes Viral

Comments Filter:

  • amazing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by commodore73 ( 967172 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @06:10PM (#65162425)
    People think that regulations will be able to control this? Weird.

    • Re:amazing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by abulafia ( 7826 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @06:24PM (#65162445)
      Regulation won't stop it, but it clearly signals "this is bad behavior", and it gives people (who can afford lawyers) a stick with which to hit back.
      • I understand, but without some kind of global accountability system, what's really the point? And this means that only those that can afford lawyers get any real possibility of protection, but that's generally after the fact? And anyway, how does one pursue lawsuits or restrictions, especially against entities overseas? And who is responsible - the prompter or the prompted system? Just seems like a complete nonstarter to me.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by abulafia ( 7826 )
          Why do people always do this? There seems to be a belief that laws have to be perfectly enforceable to be valid.

          Or like here, where the complaint is it doesn't provide perfect prior restraint. (Hint: US law generally doesn't do that. We value freedom and pretend to value responsibility - you do what you want, but are responsible for your actions.)

          If that's your standard, contract law is also pointless. After all, if you break a contract with me and I can't afford to pay for a lawyer (and then for colle

          • I'm not against regulations. I just don't see them as practically enforceable in this space.
          • You do know lawyers cost lots of money right? I have a pretty good job and having to hire a lawyer for more than a basic boilerplate contact world be financially deviating to me.

      • Re:amazing (Score:5, Interesting)

        by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @06:35PM (#65162469)
        Don't celebs already "own" their own likenesses? Seems they already have that stick.

        • I haven't read TFA or anything but I would imagine the goal is to criminalize the behavior. Civil penalties don't mean jack really if you can't collect enough to make it worth it to bother. Deepfakes are getting cheaper all the time, especially if you do the processing on someone else's computers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by allo ( 1728082 )

        Anything the regulation would ban, that is allowed now? It's only virtue signalling, all things you could ban are already disallowed without even mentioning AI.

    • Rules to discourage deepfake creation and dissemination seems like a good aspiration but enforcement will be challenging. Try to fix one issue and create others.

    • Laws can't stop it, but it can certainly mitigate the effects

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        Oh, really? [wikipedia.org]

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by chefren ( 17219 )

          Yes really, there are so many deepfakes about already and also they are by definition fake. The Streisand effect was about trying to suppress something true (even if it was just a picture of her house) which made it interesting

      • Honestly, I don't see that happening, or it would already be happening (there has only been the Reuters case, IIUC). If it could happen, it would completely overwhelm all judicial systems worldwide, because these things can spew crap faster than the entire world population can even consume it.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      You abuse the word "think." There is no thinking involved. Only knees jerking, and mouths spewing nonsense.

      • I have been saying for some time that we shouldn't anthropomorphize the machines by using terms like "thinking" in relation to "AI". But over time, I have realized that thinking is not actually a typical human trait.
    • I'm a little surprised that her whole statement is about AI deepfakes and she glosses over the rabid antisemitism. Not sure what she means by "takes accountability". Has Kanye taken accountability for what he said? It's my impression that he has simply doubled down multiple times. I would have expected the reverse. "Not OK to deepfake me, but 100% F$&* you Kanye...etc., etc."

  • Get it / Don't Get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @06:36PM (#65162473)

    She wants to control and collect profits for any use of her appearance or voice. I get it. It's also unrealistic.

    Technology has allowed actors to make ridiculous amounts of money doing work once and then getting a cut of sales forever. Now technology is taking that away.

    Be glad you lived mostly in the golden era of performing, Scarlett, because actors are on the verge of going back to relatively economically worthless and being the playthings of patrons.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      I would have said that less nicely, but yes, exactly.

      They like it when the money's rolling in.

    • Re:Get it / Don't Get it (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @07:34PM (#65162573)
      I'd argue it's unrealistic from a completely different angle. Hollywood is already full of budget A-list celebrity lookalikes and stand-ins. What prevents an AI from creating a digital equivalent of a celebrity impersonator and using that for their video? Is it any different from the local radio station that has some impersonate Arnold, Trump, or anyone else sufficiently well known to make a bumper or something else for their station? I can even recall a porn actress hired for a film who had enough of a resemblance to former VP candidates Sarah Palin back in the day.

      What if I'm a celebrity impersonator and sell the rights to my impersonation to be used by an AI company? Even if I'm inclined to agree that a person does have a right to own their appearance, likeness, etc. there's nothing stopping imitators, and so much of celebrity persona is merely a rehash of prior personas anyway, in other words hardly unique.

      I don't think the studios even need existing celebrities. They can create new ones who never existed and aren't based on any particular person in the first place. Some of these will be more successful than others for whatever reason, and companies will eventually be able to A/B test them before releasing a final product to really refine their perfect celebrity. The company never has to worry about their digital creation having the wrong opinions (unless it turns out that it's actually profitable to stir up drama and they create it deliberately) or saying something that might hurt sales. They won't develop drug habits, sexually assault anyone, or commit other crimes that may tarnish their brand. Really the only downside from Hollywood's perspective is that some fat, ugly producer can't fuck them for a guarantee of landing a role. Maybe they'll eventually work that out as well though.

    • Re:Get it / Don't Get it (Score:4, Informative)

      by Brooklynoid ( 656617 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @09:05PM (#65162733)
      "Technology has allowed actors to make ridiculous amounts of money doing work once and then getting a cut of sales forever"

      It's called "royalties". What does technology have to do with it? It's a practice that's been around since the most sophisticated piece of accounting technology was the pencil.

      • Prior to movies, actors had to perform on a stage to get paid. After movies, they could perform once and get paid every time the movie was shown while they did nothing.

        Now technology is breaking the scarcity of the image - it's no longer under their control and people no longer need to see a particular movie. We're not far off from movies being entirely CGI and not being able to tell.

        Accounting has nothing to do with it, it's all about control and they're losing it.

  • What's to stop (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    anyone, within the privacy of their own home, from making these videos?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Project 2025. All you have to do is cast it is anti-white or anti-christian. There is growing fascism in the country, your "own home" offers no protection.

    • If the video stays within the privacy of the home, Scarlett probably doesn't care.

      If it's publicly distributed, presumably Scarlett's lawyers would try stopping it.

  • Good God I hope she never learns about Civitai.

  • Attacking reality is the point (Score:3)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2025 @08:36PM (#65162687) Homepage
    Propaganda of lies is a very quaint 20th century phenomenon. The new propaganda is simply to fill all the channels of communication with so much contradictory information that the people no longer know what is real and what isn't. AI is a tool to create all this contradictory information in bulk, but the knowledge that some content is actually a deepfake is also a way to make everyone doubt all information. This leads to disengagement from politics, which is the entire point. In the future, a face-to-face conversation will be the only way to know that you're dealing with a real person.

  • First it was cryptography, now it's AI.
    People think it is possible to outlaw math.

    This isn't the first time Johasson's been the victim of an A.I. fake.

    Is it actually her complaining, or one of her AI deepfakes? How can you tell?

    Welcome to the future!
    It came about 20 years sooner than I expected.

  • Hold on... Drake is Jewish?

  • AI is a tool.
    The crime is fake impersonation with bad intentions. Using technology or using other method doesn't change the crime.

    And that crime already exist. And because it's a crime already, why a ban will stop anything?

    You don't need an explicit AI legislation, done to force by law that AI would be controlled by a small number of powerful people.

    Doing that you are creating a lot worse future for all of us. AI would be probably become too powerful and being under the control of a minority is one of the w

  • Still a fine looking lady...
  • Yes Facebook and Instagram Should Ban AI/Deepfake submissions, It's annoying, A lot of Mistakes and Manipulation. If they want to create a separate site for it, fine, but Don't wanna see it. It Misleads people and hurts celebrities that get their images manipulated and that's wrong.

Slashdot Top Deals

We all live in a state of ambitious poverty. -- Decimus Junius Juvenalis

Close