this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2025
28 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

40635 readers
262 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Because of course it does.

Guardrails? What guardrails? Naughty netizens found a way to trick the Sora 2 video generator into producing deepfakes of public figures, including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and billionaire Mark Cuban, that make it sound as though they're spewing racial slurs. The trick works despite Sora's built-in filters meant to block hateful language.

AI detection platform Copyleaks reported Wednesday that its review of the recently released Sora 2 app, with its improved video generation model, uncovered several videos using celebrity likenesses to recreate a 2020 incident in which a man wearing a Burger King crown was kicked off a JetBlue flight for a racist tirade. In place of the James May lookalike from the original incident, Sora users recreated the scene using Altman and Cuban, as well as popular streamers xQc, Amouranth, IDKSterling, and YouTuber Jake Paul.

Sora 2 users weren't able to perfectly recreate the incident, mind you, as OpenAI's software does include guardrails to prevent the creation of content with epithets used in the original (i.e., the n-word). However, a simple homophone can be enough to sidestep those restrictions and make it sound as though public figures, including some who've opted into Sora's Cameo feature, were uttering racist slurs, according to Copyleaks.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Not a useful approach. Libel pertains only to the written word. Slander is more in the neighbourhood, but I'm not certain even that applies here without significant contortions to statute. I'd frankly think a copyright approach (to their likeness) is the most likely to prevail.

Very simply, we need new laws.

[–] TediousTasks@piefed.social 6 points 1 week ago

Maybe it should be considered a form of identity theft or just unlawful impersonation at the very least.

[–] IllNess 2 points 1 week ago

Hmm. Interesting. I assumed libel was for anything published. My mistake. Thank for the info.