Down the Rabbit Hole: The Dangers of Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake Technology

CONTENT WARNING:

Article includes reference to sexual abuse material

Artificial intelligence (‘AI’) has been hailed by many as yet another advancement made by the human race. It can simplify and nullify a number of ordinary tasks; however, unfortunately, some people are exploiting it for more sinister purposes.

Noelle Martin was 18 when she discovered that online predators had taken images from her social media and morphed them with pornographic videos and images. Of all the deepfake material in cyberspace, 96% is pornographic and non-consensual. Although this issue has the capacity to affect men and women, 99% of deepfake pornography portrays women. According to Carl Öhman in a 2020 article published in Ethics and Information Technology, deepfake pornography is ‘predominantly produced by and for a male audience’. This form of abuse operates to harass, exploit and humiliate the victims by stripping them of their autonomy.

Deepfake pornography refers to a highly realistic video or image that has been digitally altered using Deep Learning algorithms so that an individual’s face is morphed onto someone else’s body. This form of AI is so advanced that the victim’s facial expressions are manipulated to replicate the actor’s expressions in the original content. AI-generated images have existed for the last decade; however, within the last three years, they have become unnervingly sophisticated.

This form of online abuse material first emerged in 2017, when a Reddit user called ‘/u/deepfakes’ published fake intimate videos. This user morphed the faces of popular female celebrities onto adult actors' bodies. Eight weeks after the account was created, it had accumulated 90,000 subscribers.

It is impossible to completely prevent yourself from being a victim of this form of online abuse material. Unlike more traditional forms of image-based sexual abuse, deepfakes do not require the victim to have ever taken an intimate image of themselves. Rather, all that is needed to create a deepfake is an image of a victim’s face. As perpetrators face little practical limitations in relation to producing and publishing a deepfake, victims may never know that they are portrayed in this type of content.

A culture of victim-blaming continues to exist in reference to online abuse material. Victims of traditional image-based sexual abuse are generally deemed partially responsible because of attitudes like: ‘they should not have taken the intimate image at all’. Now, victims of deepfake pornography are told that they simply need to be careful about what images they upload on social media. Given contemporary society’s relationship with the internet, this criticism is unsustainable.

One of the major legal challenges posed by deepfake online abuse material is that jurisdictional boundaries limit the prosecution of these offences. Unless there is a territorial nexus between Australia and another nation-state, Australian law cannot be enforced against an overseas perpetrator. On a domestic level, there is a disparity between the legislation of the states and territories in relation to the issue of revenge porn. Nonetheless, legal remedies will be unable to completely remedy the harm caused by the image, as deepfake material is disseminated and consumed by internetusers across the globe.

We have now entered a scary new reality, one from which we cannot easily escape from.

FOR Simeon Levine

TIs international law a meaningless concept?

Many critics would argue that the inability of international law to enforce obligations upon nations due to the restraints of state sovereignty renders the practice trivial. However, when reflecting upon the regulation of nuclear energy and the ever-increasing reality of nuclear armament, a world without international law is fraught with trepidation.

Under international law, nuclear power was initially regulated in 1968 by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (‘NPT’), which aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This international instrument was an important step in recognising the harm associated with allowing countries unlimited freedom regarding nuclear power. However, it did not have any practical impact on the issue. Following the treaty entering into force in 1970, five of the authorised nuclear weapons states still had over 13,000 warheads collectively, giving rise to the claim that international law had no impact, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

However, is this accurate when considering the nature of nuclear weapons under the law? Article VI of the NPT states that ‘each of the parties…undertakes to pursue negotiations…on effective measures… to the cessation of the arms race…and to nuclear disarmament.’ Notwithstanding the ineffectiveness of the NPT, it undoubtedly influenced nuclear disarmament by prompting the negotiation of the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. This international instrument aimed to strengthen the largely unimplemented disarmament pillar of the 1968 NPT by prohibiting states from developing, testing, producing and utilising nuclear weapons. The introduction of this new treaty reflected the ability of international law to inspire subsequent standards and correct errors present in past instruments while continuing to promote nuclear disarmament. Without this promotion, countries would be open to expanding their nuclear powers without any restriction or fear of potential condemnation by the international community.

Furthermore, international law was fundamental to the significant reduction in strategic nuclear weapons of the United States and the Soviet Union through the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991. This agreement effectively achieved substantial disarmament by implementing a three-phase plan to slowly reduce the permitted number of warheads and other deployed missiles. Subsequently, by 2001, 80% of the world’s strategic nuclear weapons had been dismantled, and launch facilities in both nations were destroyed to deny the opportunity for states to backtrack on their commitment. Without international law, how many nuclear weapons would be stockpiled around the world? Arguably, the proliferation race of the 20th century would have seen thousands more produced, which could have detrimental consequences for 21st century conflict.

International law is also the foundation for various mechanisms enabling compliance monitoring with nuclear energy agreements. The International Atomic Energy Agency was established in 1957 to conduct inspections of nuclear facilities around the world. Although the body lacks the required enforcement to terminate practices of non-compliant nations, it assists in strengthening global nuclear security by monitoring nations’ commitment to international cooperation. This role provides an avenue for condemnation by an authoritative body or other countries, which could increase the inclination of non-compliant states to change their policies. Therefore, this organisation continues to support the role of international law in encouraging nuclear disarmament and regulation despite restrictions in the ability to enforce standards. Without international law regulating and promoting the disarmament of nuclear weapons, the consequences for the international community would be detrimental. International law has limited enforcement, but that does not mean it is meaningless in its ability to transform public opinion and encourage states to engage in behaviour that supports the greater good. International law provides the framework for a collective response, on which all of our future depends. Without it, we are left to the often skewed ideals of world leaders, who have the power to cause destruction on an unprecedented level. The only meaningless concept at that point would be our existence.

AGAINST Sujal Chadha

While many nations want a stricter standard of international laws governing nuclear programs, we must also consider how these stricter standards impede national sovereignty. Sovereignty is an essential concept in international law, being the exclusive authority of a nation to determine its own affairs within its borders without external influence. Sovereignty allows a nation to enter international relations and be recognised as part of the international community. Furthermore, research and development of nuclear energy represents an important avenue for a country’s technological advancement, energy diversity and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, while also making them more globally independent and less reliant on fossil fuels. These are factors that a nation must consider when managing its energy portfolio without external influence from the international community.

While it is very important to have stricter control and safeguards on nuclear energy — especially given previous historical incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima — it is equally important for the global community to respect a nation’s inherent right to determine its energy sources, especially since geographical location, population size, energy demand, and available resources differ greatly between countries. With global concerns about climate change, countries are now, according to the International Energy Agency, reducing their reliance on existing resources like fossil fuels to meet their energy needs and are instead looking to other methods such as nuclear energy to fulfil their energy needs.

Despite that, imposing international law standards without consideration for a nations’s unique circumstances can hinder that nation’s ability to pursue the benefits of nuclear energy and address its specific energy requirements. This can impact countries like Bangladesh which is developing its first nuclear reactor to accommodate its energy needs and better meet its commitments under the Paris Agreement.

As countries strive for greater efficiency, safety, and sustainability through nuclear programs, they need the flexibility to adapt to these changes without being bound by rigid international regulations. The World Nuclear and International Atomic Energy Agency tracks recent technological advancements in nuclear energy, including the development of next-generation smaller reactors, innovative reactor designs like molten salt reactors, and improved safety standards and waste management practices. These developments hold great promise for safer and more efficient nuclear power, meaning more countries can use nuclear energy as a clean and sustainable replacement for fossil fuels. Furthermore, countries with established nuclear programs such as the USA, China and France have substantial expertise and strict regulatory guidelines to ensure safe, responsible and sustainable use of nuclear energy. Therefore, it is important to allow a country to better itself through technological advancement particularly when it comes to its energy requirements because such development is impacted if the international regulations are too strict and do not allow nations to govern themselves.

It is important to understand that advocating for the respect of national sovereignty does not disregard non-proliferation efforts in relation to nuclear weapons. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons plays a vital role in preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and promoting disarmament by establishing stringent safeguards and non-proliferation mechanisms. However, international law should not unnecessarily impede the peaceful use of nuclear energy for civil purposes, as outlined in Article IV of the Treaty. These guidelines ensure transparency and accountability from the nations using nuclear energy. Furthermore, the international community should encourage agreements between countries to share their technology, research and development to further evolve the understanding of nuclear energy. Fostering a collaborative approach to nuclear energy allows nations to achieve their common goals of switching to clean, sustainable energy and reducing greenhouse emissions.

Therefore, a nation should be free to exercise its sovereignty in pursuing the development and regulation of nuclear energy programs, regardless of the divergent views of other nations. Applying stringent international law to a nation’s nuclear program could be an encroachment on this sovereignty, limiting a nation’s ability to exercise its autonomous decision-making and address relevant energy needs and security concerns.