美国参议院通过针对非自愿色情内容的反Deepfake法律

币界网Publicado em 2024-08-13Última atualização em 2024-08-13

币界网报道:

美国参议院就一项“反深度伪造”法律进行了投票,该法律旨在保护个人免受在色情内容中未经同意使用其肖像的行为。

该法案的一份文本写道,由伊利诺伊州民主党参议员理查德·德宾提出并于周一在参议院通过的《DEFIANCE(破坏明确伪造图像和非自愿编辑)法案》旨在“改善受非自愿活动影响的个人的救济权”。

该法案现已提交众议院,在那里等待审查,然后才能提交乔·拜登总统的办公桌,然后被正式纳入法律。

根据该法案,受害者将能够对通过使用软件、机器学习、人工智能或其他计算机生成或技术手段进行的“数字伪造”采取行动,这些伪造行为在长达十年的时间里虚假地看起来是真实的性化图像,是标准诉讼时效的两倍。

它将允许可识别的个人获得损害赔偿,包括高达25万美元的违约赔偿金、诉讼费用和实际损害赔偿,同时也使法院能够给予惩罚性和公平的救济,如禁令。此外,它还通过允许使用假名和控制法庭上敏感信息的披露,为原告提供隐私保护。

不仅可以对创建材料的人采取行动,还可以对分发或拥有材料的任何人采取行动。

然而,专家警告称,该法案在解决深度伪造可能造成的潜在损害方面只涵盖了冰山一角。

虽然该法案仅适用于性化图像,但Gartner副总裁分析师Svetlana Sicular告诉Decrypt,此举需要成为将此类行为定为刑事犯罪的开始,而不是结束。

Sicular说:“我看到这项法律侧重于色情图片,这对保护个人来说是件好事。”。“我们的社会应该在个人、商业、政治和地缘政治层面得到保护。”

Sicular还表达了她对政治深度造假“尤其影响民主选举结果”的担忧,以及对破坏企业的深度造假的担忧,包括冒充挪用公款、减少竞争和损害声誉。

Sicular说:“像俄罗斯这样的国家行为者积极使用Deepfakes来实现‘混合战争’的进步,混合了动能、网络和虚假信息攻击。”。“我们正在进入一个新世界,在这个世界里,批判性思维和针对人工智能危害的法律保护至关重要。”

Gartner的研究表明,62%的首席执行官和高级业务主管认为,在未来三年内,deepfakes至少会给他们的组织带来一些运营成本和复杂性,5%的人认为这是一种生存威胁。

例如,当网络犯罪分子使用AI deepfakes冒充工程公司奥雅纳的首席财务官,并说服一名员工从该公司的银行账户中转账2500万美元时,没有涉及色情内容。

与此同时,由于深度造假、不信任和虚假信息的盛行,Politico将这个时代称为“人工智能选举”时代。共和党和民主党已经就各自竞选活动的人群规模展开了信息战。

政府还有其他法案,从更全面的意义上解决深度伪造问题,例如H.R.5586,该法案将攻击使用深度伪造技术制作“任何包含移动视觉元素的先进技术虚假人物记录”。然而,自2023年9月以来,该法案没有取得进展。

编辑:塞巴斯蒂安·辛克莱

Leituras Relacionadas

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

"A Short Seller's Dire Prediction: AI Boom Fading, US Stocks to Peak by Q3 with 30-50% Decline" Prominent macro investors Jeffrey Gundlach and Felix Zulauf warn that the AI-driven market rally is nearing its end, forecasting a major US stock market correction of 30-50%, potentially beginning as early as Q3. Their analysis points to alarming parallels with historical market tops, citing extreme concentration in the top AI-related stocks within the S&P 500. Zulauf's bearish thesis hinges on unsustainable capital expenditure trends among major cloud companies, negative free cash flow emergence, and soaring semiconductor prices. Gundlach highlights dangerous parallels to the 1999 tech bubble peak. A key divergence from conventional wisdom is Gundlach's view that long-term Treasury yields will not fall meaningfully even during a recession, due to America's structurally out-of-control fiscal deficits and soaring interest costs. He warns this could force the government into yield curve control or even a sovereign debt restructuring. Both investors express severe concerns about the opaque private credit market, drawing parallels to the pre-2008 financial crisis environment. They allege widespread rating inflation, misrepresented credit quality, liquidity illusions, and fraudulent asset valuations within this sector. The analysis links the AI boom and private credit crisis through financing costs. They argue that as AI companies' cash flows weaken and they seek funding, a high and sticky long-term interest rate environment will severely stress lower-rated corporate borrowers, exposing cracks in credit markets. Finally, they predict a regime shift where the US dollar weakens and US equities underperform global markets, marking the end of their long dominance. The stage is set for a significant market reversal.

marsbitHá 6m

'Bear' Doomsday Prophecy: AI 'Reaching Its Peak', U.S. Stocks to Top Out Fastest in Q3, Down 30-50%

marsbitHá 6m

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

**Title: Why Isn't DeFi Insurance Being Bought?** DeFi insurance, which promised automated, unbiased payouts via smart contracts, has failed to gain traction. The core issue is economic: high premiums severely erode the yields that attract users to DeFi in the first place. For example, insuring a USDC deposit on Aave V3 could cost 1.5–2.5% of the annual yield, leaving a net return barely above a savings account. For riskier platforms like Maple Finance or Ethena, premiums can even turn net yields negative. Consequently, users often forgo insurance, as it nullifies their profit motive. The market also suffers from structural flaws. First, DeFi risks are highly correlated (e.g., an oracle failure can impact multiple protocols simultaneously), unlike the independent risks in traditional insurance. This makes large-scale events potentially catastrophic for insurers. Second, the total capital in DeFi insurance pools (e.g., Nexus Mutual's ~$81.5M) is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in total value locked (TVL), creating a massive capacity gap. A single major hack could drain the entire industry's reserves. Furthermore, the governance model where tokenholders vote on claims creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing them to deny payouts to protect their own funds. As a result, the sector is shrinking. While pioneers like Nexus Mutual are pivoting to preventative measures (bug bounties) and seeking external capital via reinsurance, the fundamental problems remain. DeFi insurance represents a public good—its stability benefits the entire ecosystem—but without a mechanism to share costs, a "tragedy of the commons" ensues where no one is willing to pay, leaving the system vulnerable.

marsbitHá 20m

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

marsbitHá 20m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片