1

Michelle Brown
CST 300 Writing Lab
14 October 2022

AI-Generated Synthetic Media (Deepfake Technology)

As the world continues to progress and advance, so does technology. This technology can

affect our lives both positively and negatively, with examples in Artificial Intelligence (AI)-

generated synthetic media, or also called deepfake technology. There are examples of how

deepfake technology can be beneficial and detrimental, but the issue is whether or not deepfake

technology should be made illegal because of its potential harm. The terms “deepfake” and “AI-

generated synthetic media” will be used interchangeably throughout this argument.

Background

Deepfake technology is artificial intelligence that uses algorithms, called generative

adversarial networks (GANs) to generate videos and/or audio of events that never actually

happened; this includes fake videos and/or audio of people (Marr, 2022). An example of this

technology being used is if a video is recorded of one person making a speech, but then

swapping out the original person’s face with a celebrity’s face; therefore, making it seem as if

the speech was actually presented by the celebrity. Today, there are various free online

applications that are available to the public, allowing anyone to make their own deepfake video

and/or audio. Since its rise in popularity, the technology has been used for positive (i.e. detecting

tumors) and negative (i.e. swapping someone’s face into a pornographic video that they did not

consent to) use cases (Çolak, 2021). This has brought about the on-going issue of whether or not

this technology should be advanced and whether or not it should be legal.

History
 2

Although data manipulation is much more elaborate today, the idea of it is not new. Data

manipulation has been happening since the Ancient Roman times; they “chiseled names and

portraits off stone, permanently deleting a person’s identity and history” (Somers, 2020). With

computers and technology (especially AI), the world is only getting more advanced with data

manipulation (i.e. apps that allow users to edit pictures of how they look online). In 2017, a

Reddit user, who went by the name of “deepfakes”, “created a space on the online news and

aggregation site, where they shared pornographic videos that used open source face-swapping

technology” (Somers, 2020). As a result of this, this Reddit user came up with the “deepfake”

term that we use today. However, because of the negative use cases associated with the original

term “deepfake”, many have preferred to use “AI-Generated Synthetic Media”.

Stakeholder Analysis

A stakeholder is any person or group of people affected by an issue (whether they are

affected positively or negatively). Regarding the issue of whether or not deepfake technology

should be advanced, the two key stakeholders affected are those who are pro deepfake

technology and those who are against deepfake technology.

Stakeholder 1 - Pro deepfake technology

Values. Stakeholders who are pro deepfake technology value that this is an area of AI

and technology where advancements can be made in order to create new ideas and opportunities

that would otherwise not be possible. Some areas where this technology can be used and benefit

include accessibility, criminal forensics, education, etc. (Jaiman, 2020).

Position. Because of the positive use cases that have occurred from the use of AI-

Generated Synthetic Media technology, pro deepfake stakeholders believe that the technology

should be advanced and not be made illegal.

 3

Examples of positive use cases have occurred in areas such as medical, accessibility and

education. In the medical field, this technology has been used in medical studies without having

to use live test subjects, while still benefiting the greater population with its end result

(treatment, medication, etc.). Without harming animals or humans, this technology may be useful

in developing treatments (Marr, 2022). By lessening the gap between the advantaged and

disadvantaged, this technology has also improved accessibility. An example is the use of AI-

Generated Synthetic Media to create a synthetic voice for patients who cannot speak, giving

them the ability to communicate with their friends and family (Jaiman, 2020). In education, AI-

Generated Synthetic Media has been used to allow students to view a video of a historical figure

delivering an important speech, rather than only reading about it in a textbook because it was

never actually caught on film (Jaiman, 2020).

Claims. One claim used to support this position is Claim of Value, which states that an

action is right or wrong based on what a person values. This can differ depending on what is

“normal” in a person’s society. The medical use case previously mentioned values not harming

live humans and/or animals in test studies. It is desirable if we can use deepfake technology to

develop helpful treatments without the negative or harmful effects on the way there. The

education use case previously mentioned values the quality of a student’s educational

experience. By using deepfake technology, it provides the opportunity to deliver the same

information in a more engaging form.

Another claim used to support this position is Claim of Cause, which states that the effect

of one event is caused by another. The accessibility use case above makes a connection between

the effect of using deepfake technology to develop the ability for patients to communicate with a

synthetic voice. They now have one less disadvantage than they did before.
 4

Stakeholder 2 - Against deepfake technology

Values. Stakeholders who are against deepfake technology value preventing the spread of

misinformation and defamation that can come from the use of this. They also value preventing

criminal activity from the use of deepfake technology and suspicion that any piece of media

could be fake, potentially causing chaos and confusion. Technology is advancing at a rapid rate.

In very little time, the technology used to make deepfake media will be so good that “In the

months and years ahead, deepfakes threaten to grow from an Internet oddity to a widely

destructive political and social force. Society needs to act now to prepare itself” (Toews, 2020).

Users may no longer be able to distinguish real from fake media.

Position. Because of the negative use cases that have occurred from the use of AI-

Generated Synthetic Media technology, stakeholders against deepfake technology believe that

the technology should be made illegal.

The following are some examples of negative use cases. Previously, viral deepfake

videos have spread of President Barack Obama using a swear word when describing President

Donald Trump, when he did not actually say this (Toews, 2020).

On New Year’s Day 2019, Ali Bongo, the president of Gabon (an African country),

spoke in a video to the public in an attempt to reassert his leadership, as the public had not heard

from him for quite some time. However, Bongo did not seem natural in this video and suspicions

grew that it was fake and people jumped to conclusions that he was actually dead or unable to

perform his duties. It was never proven that the video was real or fake, but the military did try to

seize the government.

After Mumbai journalist Rana Ayyub wrote an article about an Indian political party in

April 2018, she faced retaliation from those who did not agree with her article. This came in the
 5

form of a deepfake pornographic video which used her face without her consent and was spread

on social media. The embarrassment and negative attention she received from this caused her to

go to the hospital and no longer continue with social media (Jaiman, 2020).

Lastly, in 2020, an attorney from Pennsylvania was tricked into thinking that he was

actually talking to his son on the phone, who asked for $9000 to bail him out of jail, when in

reality, it was a deepfake audio of his son’s voice (Jaiman, 2020).

Claims. One claim used to support this position is Claim of Policy, which states that

policies should be put in place to fix an issue in society. Deepfake technology can be used for

harmful and malicious intent. Therefore, a policy should be put in place to prevent it, thus

making it illegal. The use cases above provide examples of how it has caused defamation,

confusion and mistrust from the public.

Argument Question

Should AI-Generated Synthetic Media (Deepfake Technology) be illegal, thus halting the

advancement of this technology?

Stakeholder Arguments

Stakeholder 1 - Pro deepfake technology; the technology should not be made illegal

The pro deepfake technology stakeholders use the Utilitarianism ethical framework to

argue their position. The Utilitarianism ethical framework was developed by Jeremy Bentham

(MacAskill et al., 2022) and is guided by how an act affects everyone. The goal is for the

consequences of an act to result in happiness for the most people possible. One should aim to

help others.

Referring to the medical and education use cases discussed in the corresponding

stakeholder’s “Position” section above, the following demonstrates how the tenets of the
 6

Utilitarianism framework are used to argue the pro deepfake technology position. Medical

advancements using deepfake technology have the possibility to provide benefits to the larger

population. Treatment and medications that result from it can help large groups of sick and

disadvantaged patients. Education advancements can teach a new generation of children who

may not have been interested or engaged in their education before.

According to this stakeholder’s perspective, the correct course of action to take on this

issue is that deepfake technology should not be made illegal and should continue to be advanced.

The developments that come from it may not be possible if we do not continue to learn and

progress in this area. This course of action would be a gain for this stakeholder because

continuing to advance deepfake technology will provide opportunity for disadvantaged

individuals by giving them tools that they may not have had access to before. We also continue

to learn and progress as a society.

Stakeholder 2 - Against deepfake technology; the technology should be made illegal

The stakeholders against deepfake technology use the Ethical Egoism framework to

argue their position. As discussed in his book, “The Methods of Ethics” by Sidgwick (1874),

Ethical Egoism is explained as the individual acting in their own interest; what will have the

most desirable effect for them. “...I have used the term “Egoism” as others have done, to denote a

system which prescribes actions as means to the end of the individual’s happiness” (Sidgwick,

1874, p. 72).

The tenets of the Ethical Egoism framework are used to argue this stakeholder’s position

against deepfake technology in the following examples. Deepfake videos created that target

celebrities, politicians, or everyday people can greatly harm the individual. Entire reputations can

be ruined, and in some cases, the individual cannot recover from it. Deepfake audio can trick
 7

individuals into thinking that they are speaking to someone whom they trust and potentially

resulting in identity theft and/or losing money.

According to this stakeholder’s perspective, the correct course of action to take on this

issue is that deepfake technology should be made illegal and should not continue to be advanced.

By advancing this technology, it makes it easier and easier for users to use it with malicious

intentions. As the technology gets better, it will also make it harder to distinguish real from fake

media (which could be detrimental when reviewing evidence for a court case). If deepfake

technology were to continue, it would be a loss for this stakeholder. Continuing to advance

deepfake technology will cause mistrust and confusion from the public on what is real vs. fake

media. Individuals are more at risk of being scammed by fake phone calls from someone they

think they know. Individuals are also more at risk of being the target of defamation.

My Position

I am of the opinion that AI-Generated Synthetic Media (Deepfake Technology) should

not be illegal and continue to advance. With any technology comes the potential for its misuse by

certain individuals/groups of people. We cannot halt the advancement of this technology and

miss out on the potential benefits and opportunities it can unlock to contribute to our society.

My position on this issue aligns with Stakeholder 1 (Pro deepfake technology). If we can

perform medical studies and tests without using live animals or humans, we receive the benefit

of the end result without harming anyone in the process. Students can experience a more

engaging learning experience. As a student, watching a video of a speech delivered by the

historical figure themselves (even if it is a deepfake video), may leave a better lasting impact and

impression vs. reading it out of a textbook. Additionally, the synthetic voice for the patient who
 8

can’t speak may provide opportunities they wouldn’t have had before due to easier

communication.

I don’t think the use of deepfake technology should be illegal or banned as a whole.

Rather, the crime that the technology is used for should be charged as it would today and

deepfake technology is merely the tool that they used to commit the crime. For example, if

someone uses deepfake technology to ruin someone’s reputation, they should be charged in a

defamation case regardless of the tool they used to carry it out. If someone is using deepfake

technology for non-malicious reasons, I don’t think they should receive any kind of punishment.

As Castro (2020) states, “... make it unlawful to distribute deepfakes with a malicious

intent…However, it is important that lawmakers carefully craft these laws so as not to erode free

speech rights or undermine legitimate uses of the technology”.

 9

References

Castro, D. (2020, January/February). Deepfakes are on the rise — How should government

respond? Government Technology. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from

https://www.govtech.com/policy/deepfakes-are-on-the-rise-how-should-government-

respond.html

Çolak, B. (2021, January 19). Legal issues of deepfakes. Institute for Internet and the Just

Society. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from https://www.internetjustsociety.org/legal-

issues-of-deepfakes

Jaiman, A. (2020, August 14). Positive use cases of synthetic media (aka deepfakes). Towards

Data Science. Retrieved September 25, 2022, from

https://towardsdatascience.com/positive-use-cases-of-deepfakes-49f510056387

Jaiman, A. (2020, August 19). Deepfakes harms & threat modeling. Towards Data Science.

Retrieved September 25, 2022, from https://towardsdatascience.com/deepfakes-harms-

and-threat-modeling-c09cbe0b7883

MacAskill, W., Meissner, D., & Chappell, R.Y. (2022). Introduction to utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism. Retrieved September 26, 2022, from

https://www.utilitarianism.net/introduction-to-utilitarianism

Marr, B. (2022, January 11). Deepfakes – The good, the bad, and the ugly. Forbes. Retrieved

September 19, 2022, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2022/01/11/deepfakes--the-good-the-bad-and-

the-ugly/?sh=208a35e74f76
 10

Sidgwick, H. (1874). The methods of ethics. Macmillan.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Methods_of_Ethics/PQ8SAAAAYAAJ?hl=

en&gbpv=0

Somers, M. (2020, July 21). Deepfakes, explained. MIT Sloan. Retrieved September 25, 2022,

from https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/deepfakes-explained

Toews, R. (2020, May 25). Deepfakes are going to wreak havoc on society. We are not prepared.

Forbes. Retrieved September 25, 2022, from

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robtoews/2020/05/25/deepfakes-are-going-to-wreak-havoc-

on-society-we-are-not-prepared/?sh=421a8b987494