WP3
Part 1
Dear Big Tech,
I don’t hope you’re doing well, I hope you’re just as terrified as I am.
Deepfake technology continues to make advancements, but I fear these advancements will set society farther back than we’ve ever been. The thought of technology being able to pass as my identity and the identity of important figures in society dismantles all meaning in the world. If anything can be faked, how are we expected to know what’s real?
Currently the world is in a mad frenzy to figure out if Kate Middleton’s cancer announcement was real, or AI generated. As she hasn’t been seen in public in months, the world wanted to know where she is. Just like that, the palace releases a heart touching video of “Kate” telling the world of her recent diagnosis. However there are several abnormalities in the video that raise suspicion (none of these suspicions involve her appearance or voice).
To name a couple:
Her boulder of a wedding ring vanishes and reappears
There are unseasonable flowers seen in the background
She was photographed in the same exact outfit and hairstyle at that exact location last year
There are other aspects of the video up for debate by the internet. The English Royal Family is one of the most powerful and wealthy monarchies in the world, easily possessing the power to make an accurate deepfake. The reason this video is under such debate is that it looks and sounds identical to Kate, so what if it is real?
This raises the important questions of people not believing the truth. The world is already filled with conspiracy theorists who find it hard to believe reality. What happens when it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to tell what's real and what's fake? Is ANYTHING valid anymore? Will people look for any excuse to call something a deepfake? These are all questions you need to sit long and hard to think about.
As America enters an election year, this becomes increasingly concerning. Will opposers a certain candidate create deepfakes in an attempt to bash their character? Will politicians claim that damaging content of them is a deepfake, even if it's not? Will there be a flood of content society will have to decipher to figure out what the truth is? Is this our future? Yet again I urge you to deeply consider these questions and their implications to society. Most importantly, ask yourself: Is that a world you want to live in? Cause I certainly don’t.
Aside from deepfakes of celebrities and political figures, I fear on a personal level. If this technology continues to advance, will everyday people need to worry their identity can be corrupted? Will teenagers abuse this technology to make their so-called “enemies" lives a living hell? Will immature adults get back at ex-boyfriends or get their mean bosses' careers destroyed? With cancel culture remaining on the forefront of even everyday society, the threat of deep fakes has unlimited power to all levels of society. Don’t you agree that this bad overrides your so-called good?
Now, I understand there are two sides to every story, and wanted to research the positives as well before writing to you.
My research revealed some positive outputs due to deepfake tech:
Entertainment
CGI effects and realistic renderings of deceased actors
Emergency simulations
Simulate natural disasters for response training
Historical preservation
Important lost or damaged artifacts, historical moment recreation
While this is obviously not a complete list, it did spark my curiosity regarding the usefulness of deepfakes. There is without a doubt useful benefits from this technology. Yet I still argue, would you prefer to see a deceased actor “in” a movie at the cost of widespread distrust in society?
While deepfakes may solve issues, they create ones of far larger proportions. Now lies an important time to decide how to properly handle the future of deepfakes to ensure it is properly managed. From what I have seen, your answer concerns me. Specifically the Politico article released in February titled “Big Tech tells politicians: We’ll control the deepfakes”
Incase you care to read: https://www.politico.eu/article/deepfakes-control-big-tech-elections-2024/
I understand being wary of government control, but do you genuinely believe total control of deepfakes lies in your hands? Do you even want that burden? Or is the truth that you know the government will limit your power to avoid societal mayhem? Giving the government the golden key to your secret garden is the least you can do to ensure the safety of this advanced technology.
Government regulation is an essential part of ensuring proper regulation. This process can be managed through the checks and balances of the government to make certain that any decisions are not made on a whim. While we love to complain about our politicians, at the end of the day they are our elected officials. Their job is to make decisions for the people, NOT YOU.
In addition to government regulation I have some specific points I hope you adhere to.
Limit public access to this technology
Ensure people of status (especially politicians) cannot be deepfaked
Have genuine reason behind each use of deepfake
Ensuring the positive outweighs potential negatives
While there’s more I could add, I am not trying to abolish a useful and interesting technology you’ve spent decades and billions to create. I respect your intellect and work, and see its value. It is critical that this value can be realized, and that will not happen if deepfakes destroy a key fabric of society, trust.
I trust that you genuinely listen to my words. I admit that I am not a computer scientist, or even that well versed in AI. Yet more importantly, I better represent a majority of the public. I understand it can be easy to be blinded by the bright lights of the tech world and its riches, but I plead for caution in your decision making.
At the very least, I appreciate you’ve made it this far in my letter. I’ll let you get back to your day and hope you spend some of it ensuring that your work does far more good than harm. Technology will continue to advance, and it's essential that progress is carefully monitored to ensure the world is ready to handle it with care.
Good luck,
Joey
Part 2
Originally, I intended the genre for my WP3 to be an op-ed. However, following the workshop and receiving comments from Professor Tomkins and my peers, I realized an open letter to big tech would be better. While deepfakes are a currently developing topic, it is not necessarily a current event. Additionally I realized an open letter provides much more flexibility. I prefer to write in a casual manner, and in an open letter I can do exactly that. I also find that I’m great at talking, but can struggle with writing. Therefore I took an approach to this letter as if I was leaving a long worded voicemail to a tech developer. This made it easier for me to think of what to say and how to say it. Later through the editing process, I touched it up making it more like a letter.
While it greatly depends on the exact nature of an open letter, they should generally have the following stylistic and formatting conventions. As for formatting, open letters begin with a salutation and end with a signature. These elements are very unique to open letters, and don’t often appear in other genres. Yet similar to most genres, open letters have an introduction, body, and conclusion. One key difference is the length of these sections. As letters can have a wide range in length, these sections can span from a sentence to pages.
The style of open letters also have similarities, yet differences depending on the letter. Generally, open letters can have a more casual style compared to other genres. There is no restriction on the character of language used. Due to this, open letters are often very personal and consist of plentiful first and second person pronouns. This freedom and personal expression is one of the main reasons I chose to write an open letter.
I heavily abided by these stylistic and formatting conventions in my letter. I included the basic formatting structure of salutation, introduction, body, conclusion, and signature. I especially enjoyed expressing creativity in my salutation and signature, which is something I haven’t had the opportunity to do in real letters I’ve written for my life.
Stylistically, I wrote in a very casual manner that felt more like talking than writing. I was able to do things like occasionally using ALL CAPS and inclusion of bullet points when I felt it helped put my point across in the best way. I used LOTS of first and second person pronouns, and made a personal connection for myself and the intended audience. I also posed many questions throughout, without answering most of the questions I asked. I feel as though that is only appropriate (in the quantity I did) if it is a letter to someone, as if genuinely asking them questions awaiting their response. I felt this was another element I enjoyed about writing an open letter. I felt as though I was writing expecting an outcome after I was finished writing, another thing that feels very rare in my academic writing career.
Writers have the flexibility to write to anyone in this genre. Yet most do so to make a persuasive argument to someone (often someone in power). Additionally they can be written for the public to simply view, without a genuine intention of calling action from a specific person or organization. I feel I fit in the middle of these two categories. While it is intended for the public to read, I would have no hesitation sending it to a tech developer. While its intention is for a tech developer, I feel it could also serve a politician useful when deciding on AI matters.
Overall, I really enjoyed writing this letter. I feel as though the genre was a perfect place to get my footing in a topic that I am not very knowledgeable in. Due to my lack of knowledge I was worried about choosing this as my topic, but I feel like I was able to convey my thoughts well through this format. This open letter served as a strong entry point to the topic. I now feel more confident discussing deepfakes in a more academic context now that I have this under my belt.