Which photo is real? Ohio lawmakers want to regulate deepfakes, AI content
Ohio lawmakers are trying to combat misinformation by requiring disclaimers on realistic artificial intelligence-generated or created content.
'AI — every single day, (it) seems to be getting better and better,' state Rep. Adam Mathews, R-Lebanon, said.
And it's becoming increasingly accessible. There are now widely accessible, free, or inexpensive services that use AI to create and edit photos, videos, and audio. But with that, Case Western Reserve University technology law professor Erman Ayday says come major problems.
'People can also use (sites) in order to create effects for themselves, like you can actually put yourself in front of a beach right now,' Ayday said. 'But sometimes, they're also used for manipulation, for bad purposes, for blackmailing.'
Over the past several years, deepfakes have become more prevalent online — with fake explicit photos of celebrities to politicians urging you not to vote for them.
Mathews is trying to stop this type of misinformation. He and state Rep. Ty Mathews, R-Findlay, have proposed Ohio House Bill 185, which would regulate AI content.
'This is a way for the normal Ohioans to protect themselves,' Adam Mathews said.
Malicious deepfakes, AI meant to harm someone's image, would only be allowed as long as they have a clear watermark that they were artificially manipulated.
'If it would confuse a reasonable person, there is some type of disclaimer,' the lawmaker added. 'If a reasonable person would say that this is a manipulated image, then that would not need a disclaimer.'
Let's show some examples.
This is the original photo of Rep. Mathews by a sign for now Vice President JD Vance.
This is a deepfake made of him — one by a Kamala Harris sign. This image would require a disclaimer.
This is an expertly drawn 'deepfake' we made of him. This one would not require a disclaimer.
'Political cartoons are totally protected; no one thinks that a drawing actually happened,' Mathews said.
The legislation would allow everyone to own their image, and it would be a trademark infringement to produce malicious content without someone's consent. There could be civil penalties of tens of thousands of dollars.
The bill also makes it a third-degree felony to create or distribute malicious AI content in order to extort the individual being deepfaked.
Any pornographic deepfakes or deepfakes of a child are completely banned, with or without a disclaimer.
No one has spoken out publicly against the bill, but Ayday said the biggest challenge will be enforcement.
'This is not really something scary for people who are doing this for malicious purposes — especially during the elections or during some high-stakes events,' the professor said. 'Distributing this thing in an anonymous way is extremely easy.'
The bill will continue being heard this week.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Korea to Spend $150 Billion to Fund President Lee's Policy Goals
South Korea unveiled a 210 trillion won ($152 billion) fiscal plan for 2026-2030 to support President Lee Jae Myung's core pledges, with funding to be drawn from enhanced revenue measures and greater spending efficiency. The plan, announced Wednesday by the presidential state affairs planning committee, will allocate funds across 123 projects in innovation, growth, social welfare and foreign policy, with major investments in artificial intelligence, where the government aims to become a top-three AI power. Other areas of priority include biotechnology, healthcare and defense, among others.
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Nvidia and AMD: What Trump's China AI Pay-to-Play Means for the AI Chip Stocks
Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA) and Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD) have been at the center of the contentious debate over AI chip export licensing to China. The April ban, which impacted roughly $8 billion of Nvidia's quarterly revenue and about $1.5 billion of AMD's annual revenue, was a major setback for the chip giants. That's why the reported policy shift in July was seen as a real boon for both – at least at first glance. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. However, in true Trump administration fashion, any policy reversal comes with strings attached. On Sunday, the Financial Times reported that Nvidia and AMD have agreed to hand over 15% of revenue from their H20 and MI308 chips to the U.S. government in exchange for the export licenses needed to sell these products in China. That caveat, Bernstein's Stacy Rasgon argues, casts a shadow over what initially looked like a win. 'News of license grants following Jensen's meeting with Trump later last week was welcome,' said the 5-star analyst, 'but [the] news about government payments required in return colors it a bit.' Even so, Rasgon points out that retaining 85% of revenue is still better than earning nothing, though he questions the precedent such an arrangement sets. Blocking Nvidia and AMD from China, he warns, would effectively hand the market to Huawei and drive Chinese developers deeper into its ecosystem, an outcome far from ideal for U.S. interests. His bigger worry is that this 'slippery slope' could extend to other products and industries, forcing companies to pay simply for market access. On top of that, Rasgon says the rationale isn't entirely clear: 'Sure it might raise some money, but doesn't seem to address any strategic issues beyond a grab for dollars.' It's possible that both companies could pass the cost along, particularly Nvidia, given the extraordinary demand for its products, which far outstrips AMD's. If implemented, Rasgon thinks this kind of charge could generate a few billion dollars for the US government and trim gross margins on these products by roughly 5–15 percentage points, depending on how it's accounted for. For Nvidia, with H20 demand around $20 billion, the government's cut could reach $3 billion. For AMD, with perhaps a couple of billion in demand, the hit might be a few hundred million. And while both have excluded China from current guidance, renewed licenses, even at a cost, could still mean incremental upside. Every ~$10 billion in H20 revenue for Nvidia and ~$1 billion in MI308 revenue for AMD translates to roughly $0.25 in EPS; the 15% payment trims that to about $0.20. All told, Rasgon assigns an Outperform (i.e., Buy) rating to NVDA with a $185 price target, while maintaining a Market Perform (i.e., Neutral) rating for AMD with a $140 target, implying a 20% downside. (To watch Rasgon's track record, click here) As for the rest of the Street's takes here, Nvidia claims a Strong Buy consensus rating, based on a mix of 35 Buys, 3 Holds and 1 Sell. The average target stands at $187.57, a figure that makes room for modest 12-month returns of 2%. (See NVDA stock forecast) Meanwhile, the analyst consensus rates AMD stock a Moderate Buy, based on a combination of 26 Buys and 12 Holds. Shares are expected to appreciate by ~4% over the coming year, considering the average target clocks in at $181.36. (See AMD stock forecast) To find good ideas for AI stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks' Best Stocks to Buy, a tool that unites all of TipRanks' equity insights.
Los Angeles Times
7 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's unusual deal with Nvidia and AMD sparks concerns, legal questions
President Trump struck an unusual deal with Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that allows the companies to sell certain chips to China in exchange for giving the U.S. government a 15% cut of those sales. But the unprecedented agreement also has raised concerns from politicians and legal experts over whether the deal is legal and would pose a national security threat. Questions also linger about exactly how the deal, which was announced Monday, would work because the U.S. Constitution bars taxes on exports, although some experts said Trump could find a workaround. The U.S. government might receive $3 billion from the revenue split if China's demand for Nvidia's H20 chip — which is less powerful than the company's highest-end artificial intelligence chip — reaches $20 billion, according to a note from Bernstein Research. 'It ties the fate of this chip manufacturer in a very particular way to this administration that is quite rare,' said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy. Trump's agreement with the world's most valuable company could put pressure on other tech companies and major exporters to strike similar deals with the U.S. government, but it's still unclear what the implications will be internationally, she said. The deal is the latest example of how tech companies are seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration, which has threatened to impose tariffs on semiconductor companies that don't commit to investing in the United States. Apple faced potential tariffs as well, but committed to investing $100 billion more in U.S. manufacturing after Trump criticized the company for expanding iPhone production in India. Trump also placed restrictions in April around the export of certain AI chips, including Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308, over national security concerns. He's called for the resignation of Intel Chief Executive Lip-Bu Tan, who has faced scrutiny over his reported investments in Chinese companies, but changed his tune after meeting the executive this week. Democratic and Republican lawmakers have criticized the idea that tech companies should split their sales with the U.S. government in exchange for export licenses that allow them to resume chip sales in China. 'Export controls are a frontline defense in protecting our national security, and we should not set a precedent that incentivizes the Government to grant licenses to sell China technology that will enhance its AI capabilities,' Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), the chair of the House Select Committee on China, said in a statement. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, (D-Ill.), a ranking member of that committee, said in a statement that the deal raises questions about its legality and how the funds will be used. 'The administration cannot simultaneously treat semiconductor exports as both a national security threat and a revenue opportunity,' he said. 'By putting a price on our security concerns, we signal to China and our allies that American national security principles are negotiable for the right fee.' The White House didn't answer questions about the agreement. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Tuesday that 'the legality of it, the mechanics of it, is still being ironed out by the Department of Commerce.' On Monday, Trump defended the deal with Nvidia, stating that the H20 chips are 'obsolete' and less powerful than the company's more high-end Blackwell chip. At a news conference, Trump said he met with Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and initially asked for a 20% revenue split but they came down to 15%. 'We negotiate a little deal,' Trump said. 'So he's selling a essentially old chip.' Trump's remarks came after a report from the Financial Times over the weekend that Nvidia and AMD would pay 15% of their China chip revenue to the U.S. government. AMD didn't respond to a request for comment. An Nvidia spokesperson said in a statement that the company hasn't shipped H20 chips to China for months but it hopes that easing export restrictions will 'let America compete in China and worldwide.' 'America cannot repeat 5G and lose telecommunication leadership. America's AI tech stack can be the world's standard if we race.' For Nvidia, the stakes are high. Huang said in a May interview with Stratechery, a newsletter and podcast, that the Chinese market is about $50 billion a year. Restricting H20 chip sales means that the company is walking away from profits that could be used to compete with China in the race to dominate AI. Taylar Rajic, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said she's skeptical that legal concerns would halt the arrangement because it's unclear who would sue. 'I can't identify who would bring that suit forward,' she said. 'It wouldn't be Nvidia because they're the ones who negotiated this deal.' Meanwhile, Chinese officials have their own fears that Nvidia's chips could have location tracking or remote shutdown capabilities, though the company has denied those accusations. 'China obviously has its own concerns and its own national security considerations that it wants to take into account,' Rajic said. 'It just depends on whether or not they want to buy it from us too.'
