To date, there is little information on what form(s) of AI were allegedly used in the production of the purportedly defamatory content toward actor Kim Soo-hyun by a South Korea-based YouTuber. Nonetheless, it appears that this incident could represent one of the earliest reported instances wherein an individual was held accountable (by law enforcement), for allegedly generating content which damaged a public figure's reputation via the use of artificial intelligence.
As such, the case presents a significant problem facing jurisdictions around the world; defining how those who produce potentially damaging content via their use of artificial intelligence can be held liable. In addition to the fact that the nature of the "AI generated" defamation remains unreported at present, South Korean authorities' decision to take action against a creator for allegedly producing AI generated defamation of Kim Soo-hyun, is noteworthy because it illustrates that South Korean authorities consider AI-generated defamation to be no different from traditional forms of defamation.
As such, for all users of AI in video production — including YouTubers, filmmakers and advertisers — this arrest serves as a warning that the use of AI technologies does not create immunity. Rather, the arrest indicates that authors may be held responsible for AI-produced content even if some or all elements of the content were produced by an artificial intelligence tool.
AI Video/Audio Content Generation Tools Have Become Much More Advanced & Accessible
Get the latest model rankings, product launches, and evaluation insights delivered to your inbox.
This arrest comes at a time when tools for generating both video and audio with AI have advanced rapidly, becoming more affordable and widely available. Because of this advancement, it is common for users of these tools to employ them in multiple ways throughout their video productions — i.e., to write scripts, to synthesize voices, and/or to edit video. As such, the implications for content producers are obvious. Content creators should exercise extreme caution when employing AI tools to produce content concerning identifiable individuals.
In addition, this case raises important questions regarding the role of social media platforms and their responsibilities related to moderating user generated content. As the ability to differentiate between content generated by humans and content generated by artificial intelligence continues to decrease, social media platforms are experiencing increasing amounts of pressure to establish reliable detection mechanisms and clearly articulated content moderation guidelines.
Ultimately, how South Korean courts address issues raised in this case will likely serve as a model for jurisdictions across the globe in terms of how they choose to address potential liability associated with AI content generation. Thus far, the development of AI-related ethics and best practices has moved at a much slower pace than developments in the application of AI technologies.