Yes. I believe the last part of the definition of deepfakes proposed in the bill states that they have to be “likely to be mistaken for a visual recording of that person”. We think this part creates too high of a threshold. If something has to be so realistic for it to be considered criminal.... We've seen examples of harmful deepfakes with Grok, where users asked Grok to put women in bikinis, force them to smile or cover them in blood. All of those things are acts of harm, but they wouldn't necessarily be caught under this definition of a deepfake, because they wouldn't necessarily be considered as a realistic representation of them. However, their images are still being taken without their consent and are being sexualized. That is the act of harm.
