By SoEun Park
Science & Technology
As social media platforms multiply and enlarge their audience, they become more susceptible to a specific threat: Deep Fake. By using deep learning AI technology, Deep Fake––an unauthorized digital twin of an individual usually created by malicious actors––replaces a person’s likeness with a digital replica of it. It can produce speech, actions, and emotion in alarmingly realistic ways, impacting human authenticity. This impacts three different populations: creators of Deep Fake, consumers who know it’s Deep Fake, and consumers who don’t know it’s Deep Fake. In this paper, I’ll discuss Deep Fake utilizing the arguments and views of two authors: Beauvoir and Buber. In The Ethics of Ambiguity, Beauvoir argues the paradox of human existence considering ambiguity and freedom and how personal freedom affects others. On the other hand, Buber illustrates the meaning of human relationships and explores two modes of engaging the world through his writing I and Thou. Using these two texts, I’ll argue that Deep Fake distorts human authenticity, restricting human freedom and enhancing the ‘I-it’ mode because of life’s ambiguous nature. However, Deep Fake could potentially be used to positively impact human authenticity by combating its negative uses and for positive uses instead.
It is apparent that Deep Fake leads to the restriction of human freedom, degrading human authenticity. In this paper, I’ll define authenticity as the congruence between a person’s actions and values, despite social pressure of conformity. It is acting in a way that accurately reflects who you are, acting in line with your deepest interests, motivations, and commitments. On the other hand, freedom is “the source from which all significations and all values spring” and “original condition of all justification of existence” (Beauvoir 35). As authenticity is degraded when Deep Fake appears on various social media platforms facilitated by those who create and consume it, freedom is restricted.
The tragic ambiguity of life is enhanced through Deep Fake, further restricting moral freedom. According to The Ethics of Ambiguity, “to say it is ambiguous is to assert that its meaning is never fixed, that it must be constantly won” (Beauvoir 82). With ambiguity in place, it is evident there is a constant struggle between this ambiguity and human freedom due to paradoxes embedded in the human condition. Humans need to make decisions in life, but because they’re one of billions of people in the world, it may be challenging to know what to do. Humans have all felt this “tragic ambiguity of their condition, but as long as there have been philosophers and they have thought, most have tried to mask it” (Beauvoir 28). Deep Fake makes balancing this ambiguity and human freedom even more challenging. Deep Fake restricts the freedom essential to the human condition. This is also detrimental to the freedom of others and dependency on freedom. Beauvoir argues “to will oneself moral, and to will oneself free are the same decision” and that it is impossible to liberate the other without the initial freedom of oneself. (Beauvoir 35). Ultimately, the tragic ambiguity of the human condition leads to the difficulty of moral freedom, as humans can choose from excessive magnitudes of choices. All of this manifested in different populations that interact with Deep Fake.
The use of Deep Fake by states, companies, or other actors in malicious ways is an act of oppression, which denies freedom to populations that can be divided into three groups: creators who are utilizing AI technology to make Deep Fake, consumers who are watching Deep Fake knowing it is Deep Fake, and consumers who are watching Deep Fake but not realizing it is Deep Fake. Firstly, the creators generating Deep Fake restrict other people’s freedom as the result of their actions of creation. One example can be seen in a Deep Fake video made by actor-director Jordan Peele, who impersonated Obama's voice. He showed Barack Obama speaking directly to the viewer and using obscenity to refer to his successor, Donald Trump. By putting this kind of content on the internet and social media, these creators restrict others’ freedom of what to consume and believe. Secondly, the consumers who are watching Deep Fake, knowing it is Deep Fake, entertains it, makes conclusions, and shares them, actions that are inauthentic to the human condition. Furthermore, they are restricting their moral freedom, not interested in the liberation of anyone, including themselves. Beauvoir claims one who is free is one “whose end is the liberation of himself and others,” and this is not achieved for these consumers (Beauvoir 51). Moreover, consumers watching Deep Fake but not knowing it is Deep Fake cannot differentiate between what is real or not, increasing ambiguity. In this case, they become stuck in the tragedy of ambiguity and are unable to act freely and get to moral freedom as Beauvoir advocates for. “Ethics is the triumph of freedom over facticity”; for one to be moral, freedom must be in place (Beauvoir 44). When this facticity is false for the consumers who don’t realize that what they are consuming is Deep Fake, their freedom is restricted. Therefore, they cannot act ethically and triumph over the medium because it is deceiving them. Furthermore, the inauthenticity of the creators is transferred to these consumers, who become part of the system of deception. Although they may be acting in part authentically, where their beliefs and actions align with what they think is true, there is an inauthentic transfer from the creators to these consumers. Consequently, Deep Fake doesn’t allow these populations to uphold their authenticity, leading to restricting their freedom.
Moreover, Deep Fake increases the ‘I-it’ mode of the world. According to Buber, there are two modes of engaging the world: the “experience” (the mode of ‘I-it’) and “encounter” (the mode of ‘I-You’). When viewed from the perspective of ‘I-it’ mode, the object of experience is seen as something that can be utilized, known, or put to use. The experience ‘I’ and the experienced ‘it’ have a necessary distance between them, where the former is a subject, and the latter is an object. Rather than playing an active role in engaging in the world, the ‘I’ becomes an objective observer. On the other hand, the mode of ‘I-You’ “establishes the world of relation” (Buber 56). The person enters into a relationship with the object encountered and participates in something with it. As a result, according to I and Thou, the ‘I’ and the ‘You’ are transformed by the relation between them because this mode “can be spoken only with one’s whole being” (Buber 62). However, according to Buber, it is implied that modern society acknowledges mostly one of our modes for engaging the world: ‘I-it’ mode.
Deep Fake accentuates this particular mode modernity has already elevated. Deep Fake is also mainly built up in the mode of ‘I-it’, and humans have become more alienated due to this and other features of social media. In creating an objective distance between oneself and Deep Fake, one is not actively engaging in the world but rather passively observing the medium objectively. Since Deep Fake content has humans in it, the relationship between the consumer and people represented in Deep Fake doesn’t have a genuine relationship, as the consumer becomes the observer ‘I,’ and person or people in the Deep Fake the ‘it.’ As one does not enter into a relationship with Deep Fake in an authentic way, neither the person experiencing Deep Fake nor the experienced figure in Deep Fake is changed by this relation, emphasizing the “palpable manifestation of modern man’s lack of relationship” (Buber 155). Thus, modern people feel fundamentally alienated, leading to existential angst and meaningless anxiety. Although Deep Fake is not solely responsible for these sentiments, its extreme reliance on the ‘I-it’mode makes it more conducive to them. This can be attributed to our strict reliance on experience without considering encounters, especially when dealing with Deep Fake.
Moreover, Deep Fake has generally been abused to create child sexual abuse material, celebrity pornographic videos, revenge porn, fake news, hoaxes, bullying, and financial fraud, leading to the spread of false information, creation of chaos, and exploitation, leading to the objectification of the relationship between the consumer and medium. Even consumers who don’t know the content they are consuming is Deep Fake watch it because it is entertaining. For these consumers who think that the content of Deep Fake is real, it may seem like an ‘I-You’ mode at the moment, but in fact, they are diluted into thinking the former and are actually entering an ‘I-it’ relationship in their entertainment. If this dynamic becomes overtly substantial and convincing as Deep Fake gets more advanced and realistic, this differentiation between these two modes will be difficult to check. As a result, Deep Fake becomes an experience of entertainment for people. Thus, this human element and representation are merely reduced to objects of pleasure and entertainment, increasing the ‘I-it’ mode.
However, Deep Fake has a positive aspect that can potentially expand human freedom and decrease the ‘I-it’ mode. According to The Ethics of Ambiguity, fighting oppression––in this case, Deep Fake––somewhat resolves the ambiguity of life since it is a project that surpasses one’s life, ultimately helping you make moral choices in the multiplicity of ambiguous choices in life. Deep Fake can surprisingly be utilized for good purposes despite its previous negative uses. Examples include allowing people to experience things that no longer exist or have never existed, creating novel learning tools, and creating an interactive image that lets people connect with others who have passed away. Particularly, Deep Fake has the positive potential for education, preserving stories and capturing attention for experiencing things that no longer exist. For instance, allowing people to interact with historical figures such as Holocaust survivors through Deep Fake facilitates a virtual history where people can interact with these survivors better and gain a better insight into this part of history. Some might argue that interactive images that allow people to connect with those who have passed away might harm people, as they can make them believe they are still alive through the medium; however, if utilized correctly, it can immensely help people grieve and cope with the loss of their loved ones. It is astonishing that Deep Fake, which has so often been misused, can also allow us to build projects like these. Taking action and “the sovereign affirmation of the future” will allow us to go beyond the adverse uses of Deep Fake (Beauvoir 77). With ambiguity or “the finished rationalization of the real,” ethics still is impossible with good uses of Deep Fake; in fact, ethics is a function of ambiguity and one’s attempt “to save his existence” (Beauvoir 39). What makes these projects different is they contribute to moral freedom for each project, not only for oneself but for others. This corresponds to what Beauvoir argues: one must act for the sake of the other’s freedom. Therefore, one must pursue a project of good use of Deep Fake, not only for their freedom but for others’ freedom to consume accurate and beneficial information.
According to Buber, this will allow not only freedom of oneself and others but also decrease the ‘I-it’ mode that is omnipresent in modern society. By creating a project that aims to combat these negative usages, one is entering into encounters of a direct relationship with the project, creating an ‘I-You’ mode between the consumer ‘I’ and the medium ‘You.’ Although modernity points to this path, the maximization of the ‘I-it’ mode over the ‘I-You’ mode is not inevitable. This ‘I-You’ mode is what makes us truly human and can be described as the love for creating a better future. Thus, I invite you to a world in which Deep Fake becomes a human project of building the self and others rather than something that enhances the mode of the ‘I-it.’ Our tasks can aim at the future of countering Deep Fake and finding meaning in these projects themselves, not just the promised future where people will not take advantage of it.
Ultimately, Deep Fake distorts human authenticity, restricting human freedom and enhancing the ‘I-it’ mode due to the ambiguity of life. This results in restriction of moral freedom of oneself and others that affects various populations. Further, Deep Fake enhances the mode of ‘I-it’ through the lack of direct relations. However, despite Deep Fake’s wrong usages, there is a positive aspect of Deep Fake; one can make use of Deep Fake as a tool for building oneself and others for constructive purposes. Some may argue these projects are not practical given Deep Fake’s increasingly malice and realistic nature, which further compromises human authenticity. Nevertheless, as we saw from examples above, Deep Fake can be used for something beneficial and suitable for human authenticity. As a result of these useful Deep Fake projects, fighting the oppression of Deep Fake, and striving for freedom, one can imagine a brighter future.
Photo: David Paul Morris/Getty Images
Photo Illustration: Stephen Blue/Time For Kids
Works Cited:
Beauvoir, Simone de. The Ethics of Ambiguity. Open Road Integrated Media, 2018.
Buber, Martin. I And Thou. Walter Kaufmann, 1970.
Comentarios