thorpiv

[thorpiv]

Are Deep Fakes in Deep Trouble? 

With new advances in technology, AI has been contributing to the benefits and negatives to society. Artificial Intelligence has reduced human error, increased efficiency, and a whole lot more. On the contrary, AI has been used to potentially influence or damage the image of AI. A new rise in AI called deep fakes is threatening the way people view the news, relatives, frauds, and much more.  

What are deep fakes to be exact, the Oxford dictionary labels it as “a video of a person in which their face or body has been digitally altered so that they appear to be someone else, typically used maliciously or to spread false information.” With this definition, it is safe to say that deep fakes do not have any intention for positive use. As it will come to be that these deep fakes are dangerously affecting the world. Here are some of the biggest deep fake scandals from 2024:  

Deepfake “Elon Musk”: The Internet’s Biggest Scammer. 

Deepfake CFO Tricks Employee into Transferring More Than USD $25M. 

Deepfake Robocall of President Joe Biden Encourages Democrats Not to Vote in New Hampshire Primary. 

Deepfake Audio of a School Principal Sparks Death Threats in Maryland, USA. 

Deepfake Voice Clone Targets One of the World’s Biggest Advertising Groups. 

All these instances of deep fakes are nothing minimal, they are all profoundly serious matters. You may ask how these deep fakes are so convincing that they can have their target audience succumb to the demands or acts of the deep fake. Well, the deep fakes are created with the use of two algorithms, a generator and a discriminator, to create and refine fake content. The generator builds a training data set based on the desired output, creating the initial fake digital content, while the discriminator analyzes how realistic or fake the initial version of the content is. The amount of training data needed is dependent on the quality of the deep fake desired. A less believable deep fakes used only have short snippets of audio clips and images to go off, whereas the deep fakes that are almost indistinguishable from reality are using sets of data with hours of audio files and multiple images to really refine the deep fake.  

[https://www.statista.com/chart/32108/experiences-views-of-experts-on-advanced-identity-fraud-methods/] 

This is obviously a violation of the ethical, legal, and societal rights of the party being affected by the deep fake and the party the deep fake is about. While this issue is still relatively new today, there is no explicit law or ruling on this matter. Deep fakes are falling under the stature of the Online Safety Act of 2023. This act aims to regulate “cyber abuse material,” “non-consensual intimate images” and “material that depicts abhorrent violent conduct” online, including with respect to children. Crucially, “material” is defined as “material in any form” including text, data, speech, or audio-visual images. In particular, material that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude was intended to have the effect of causing serious harm to a particular individual located in Australia or that is menacing, harassing or offensive constitutes cyber abuse material and is prohibited under the Online Safety Act. While there is no specific reference to material that is generated by an AI system in the Online Safety Act, the legislation is outcome-focused and worded broadly enough to include AI-generated deepfakes where it “depicts a person.”  

  As we can see from the Online Safety Act there are no direct conditions or focus on deep fakes they are considered under the act indirectly. With such limited repercussions on this issue, it leaves a lot of room for larger problems to arise. But there is progress in trying to detect these fakes such as algorithms analyze textures and patterns for inconsistencies that reveal fakes and detect face swaps and morphs, and patterns in motion and quality are analyzed, looking for anomalies at a frame level that are indicative of deepfake techniques. 

After discussing an overview of deep fakes, you are wondering what magnitude of disaster they cause. We can dive into a few of those instances where deep fakes were the root of the problem. 

First, The British engineering company Arup has confirmed it was the victim of a deepfake fraud after an employee was duped into sending around $25 million to criminals by an artificial intelligence-generated video call. These scammers posed as senior officers of the company where they invited the employee that was working for multinational firm as a clerk. The victim was invited by the “senior superintendent Baron Chan” as created by artificial intelligence to a video conference that would have many participants. Because the people in the video conference looked like real people, the employee made 15 transactions as instructed to five local bank accounts, which came to a total of about $25 million. 

Another incident of deep fakes is in reference to a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk and X (formally known as Twitter). In this lawsuit Elon was suing against the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections. Where Elon was for the use of deep fakes in elections to sway voters with material regardless of it being true or not. X said this in a statement about the situation,  

“While the law's reference to banning deep fakes might sound benign, in reality it would criminalize innocuous, election-related speech, including humor, and make social-media platforms criminally liable for censoring such speech". 

The state of Minnesota does have legal repercussions when it comes to the use of deep fakes in politics. Minnesota will give jail time to any individual “for disseminating a deepfake video, image or audio if a person knows it's fake, or acts with reckless disregard to its authenticity, either within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of early voting in a primary or general election.”. Here Elon was trying to push for the use of deep fakes to not be punished for spreading propaganda during a particularly important time in the country.  

Deep fakes will not stop but we need to alert the unsuspecting people of this pressing issue to preserve their dignity, belongings, and innocence.  

[thorpiv]

Disney’s issues, “PLUS” a lot more 

Everyone knows that Disney coins itself to be the happiest place on the planet Earth, but what I am about to tell you might convince you that Disney is the true villain. Back on October fifth of 2023, a couple form Long Island, New York, was eating at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant located within a shopping and dining complex called Disney Springs.  

This couple's wife, a physician at the NYU Langone hospital in Manhattan, was allergic to dairy and nuts. During her meal with her husband Jeffrey Piccolo, she informed the waiting staff about her allergy multiple times. After the consumption of her meal, she went into anaphylactic shock walking around the park, where her EpiPen was administered and driven to the nearest hospital. Unfortunately, she had succumbed to her allergy and passed away in the hospital. With her husband and family devastated, they filed a lawsuit against Disney that following February.  

The husband was seeking over $50,000 in damages under the Florida Wrongful Death Act. You are thinking that this lawsuit seems all fair and just given the circumstances and grief that occurred, and a settlement would be reached. But here is the part where I tell you justice was served in the good old fashion way. Disney initially found a legal loophole regarding a free trial subscription to Disney’s streaming service Disney+. Back in 2019, Mr. Piccolo had signed up for a free trial of the Disney+ streaming service and he also bought park tickets. With this being known, Disney argued that the case Jeffrey J. Piccolo filed should be dismissed and resolved by individual arbitration per the terms he had agreed to.  

In the Disney+ terms and conditions, section 7, it outlines the grounds for the arbitrations as follows;  

“There may be instances in which disputes arise between us. You, on the one hand, and Disney+, ESPN+, and/or Hulu, on the other hand, agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration, all Disputes (including any related disputes involving The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates) except for: (i) any claim within the jurisdiction of a small claims court consistent with the jurisdictional and dollar limits that may apply, as long as it is an individual dispute and not a class action; and (ii) any dispute relating to the ownership or enforcement of intellectual property rights. 

“Dispute” includes any claim, dispute, action, or other controversy, whether based on past, present, or future events, whether based in contract, tort, statute, or common law, between you and us concerning the Services, or this exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability or enforceability of these terms or the formation of this contract, including, without limitation, the arbitrability of any dispute, and any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.” 

Now you may ask where I am going with this, which I would be happy to lead you to the principles of software development, where I am going to compare Disney’s action to the ethics and professional practice within the developer community. In those principles, it can be summarized as guiding framework for professionals in the field, emphasizing responsibility, integrity, and public interest. It highlights key principles such as ensuring software reliability, avoiding harm, respecting privacy, and being honest about capabilities and limitations. Adhering to ethical guidelines, software engineers contribute to a safer, more inclusive, and fair technological landscape. 

I would like to point your attention to principle 2.09, 

“Promote no interest adverse to their employer or client, unless a higher ethical concern is being compromised; in that case, inform the employer or another appropriate authority of the ethical concern.” 

To elaborate on this principle, it can be viewed as that professionals should not engage in activities or make decisions that conflict with or harm the interests of their employer or client. It emphasizes loyalty, integrity, and avoiding conflicts of interest. Disney violates this principle, where decisions are made that conflict with the harm of their clients. The violation was not considered when creating these principles by the sheer seriousness of the unfortunate circumstance. If Disney were to abide by these ethical principles, they would cater to the needs of the affected party and treat this instance differently because this is not what this principle is primarily in regards about.  

Now, for a company of this caliber to even consider a motion to individual binding arbitration. When I say caliber, I am referring to a net worth of 197.07 billion. It appears that with a company acting this way, it strikes itself as economically driven. Looking at this through an outside perspective, I see a couple who has purchased and participated in Disney’s products and attractions. Who is then struck with this horrible outcome from a nice night out, just to have an extremely wealthy company throw them to the side and disregard them completely?  

Luckily, Disney eventually reconsidered, they stated that “we’ve decided to waive our right to arbitration and have the matter proceed in court.” Josh D’Amaro, chairperson of Disney Experiences followed up with this statement, “At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.” But this should have been their initial move from the start and not try to only care about money. If Disney considered this principle for even a second, they would have made the right choice based on the situation in that instant.  

I used this tragedy as an example, to show that ethics and morality and secondary to the idea of money. There are plenty of instances where it may be a small company with a similar event such as this where it could be the difference between staying in business or bankruptcy. That is why it is hard to look at most of these cases at its face value without considering a multitude of ethical and moral outcomes, but with the implementation of this framework to help do the proper things in scenarios like these.