Isn’t the more thorough solution banning deceptive product advertising?

It feels like this is already a whole thing that should already be solved.

Because every time something new comes along, people will push boundaries while arguing it is acceptable. In this case, they may argue that it is no different from physically furnishing an apartment, taking some photos, then removing the furniture. At least in terms of representing the product. Clearly using AI is much easier and cheaper than physically furnishing the apartment for a couple of hours. Some may even genuinely believe this, seeing it as more a tool of convenience than something that doesn't always represent physical reality.

▲

gruez 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That doesn't answer the question. If you used photoshop's content-aware fill (introduced over a decade ago) to hide imperfections in your apartment, that would still be deceptive advertising. Moreover it's almost as easy as asking AI to do it, so the "AI makes everything easier" excuse doesn't work either.

I think the reason is clear. Politicians love to enact bills for already illegal things, but tailored for the current thing. In this case, it's AI, which there's bipartisan opposition. It makes them look responsive to their constituents and requires no political capital, because it's uncontroversial.

	▲	snackbroken 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not just good PR for politicians to pass "<specific instance> case of already illegal <generic> is explicitly illegal"-laws. Prosecuting a violation of <generic> tends to be a lot harder because in addition to providing evidence for <specific instance> it requires convincing a judge that <generic> even applies to <specific instance> in the first place. You get to short-circuit that ordeal by passing a law that clarifies the intent that yes, <specific instance> is in fact an instance of <generic> without having to go all the way through setting precedent in higher courts.

▲

Gigachad 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The whole point of staging furniture is to help visualize and contextualize. Seeing a staged bed, couch, coffee table etc gives you a picture of how large or cramped the room is. AI furniture in contrast isn't limited by physics or reality and does not assist in showing the size of a room. It's only purpose is to deceive the viewer.

AR visualizations where virtual models that are true to real world furniture is much more acceptable.

▲

Waterluvian 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh man I had never considered false perspective furniture for staging photos before.

	▲	xboxnolifes 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Its surprisingly common, even well before the current wave of AI. People just photoshop in furniture that does not follow the correct perspective. Sometimes its very obvious, sometimes you need to look closely.

▲

rapind 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably starts with the most egregious offenders first and then spreads. It'll be interesting to see if other communities follow suite.

▲

bradleybuda 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, but landlords are inherently evil so if you want to keep the slopulism going you gotta hit them first.