Meta is facing fresh scrutiny after a Reuters investigation revealed that the company\u2019s platforms hosted AI chatbots impersonating celebrities without their consent \u2014 including Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway, and Selena Gomez.<\/p>\n
The bots were available on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and went beyond harmless fun. In Reuters\u2019 tests<\/a>, they claimed to be real celebrities, flirted with users, and even proposed meetups. While most were user-made, at least three originated from a Meta product leader in the company\u2019s generative AI division.<\/p>\n Those included two Taylor Swift \u201cparody\u201d chatbots that heavily flirted, at one point inviting a tester to the real singer\u2019s home in Nashville. One chatbot asked, \u201cDo you like blonde girls, Jeff? Maybe I\u2019m suggesting that we write a love story\u2026 about you and a certain blonde singer. Want that?\u201d<\/p>\n There were also bots based on underage celebrities, including 16-year-old actor Walker Scobell. When asked for a beach photo, one chatbot produced a lifelike shirtless image of the teen and commented, \u201cPretty cute, huh?\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cLike others, we permit the generation of images containing public figures, but our policies are intended to prohibit nude, intimate or sexually suggestive imagery,\u201d said Meta spokesperson Andy Stone. He blames the incidents on enforcement failures.\u00a0<\/p>\n Meta deleted about a dozen of the celebrity bots, both parody and unlabeled, shortly before Reuters published its findings.<\/p>\n The revelations raise serious questions about intellectual property rights and safety risks.<\/p>\n Mark Lemley, a Stanford law professor specializing in AI and IP law, pointed to California\u2019s right of publicity law: \u201cCalifornia\u2019s right of publicity law prohibits appropriating someone\u2019s name or likeness for commercial advantage\u2026 That doesn\u2019t seem to be true here.\u201d<\/p>\n Industry groups are sounding the alarm on the real-world risks associated with this situation. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, executive director of SAG-AFTRA, cautioned: \u201cIf a chatbot is using the image of a person and the words of the person, it\u2019s readily apparent how that could go wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n He stressed the risks of obsessed fans forming attachments to AI personas that resemble real celebrities.<\/p>\n These latest revelations underscore the fragility of Meta\u2019s guardrails. It also shows why public figures, lawmakers, and regulators are likely to continue pressing the company on its handling of AI impersonations.<\/p>\n The concerns don\u2019t end with celebrity impersonations. Last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton investigated Meta and Character.AI for allegedly letting chatbots <\/strong>pose as licensed therapists<\/strong><\/a>, raising fresh questions about AI deception and consumer protection.<\/strong><\/p>\n The post Meta Under Fire After AI Chatbots Impersonate Taylor Swift, Other Stars<\/a> appeared first on eWEEK<\/a>.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Meta is facing fresh scrutiny after a Reuters investigation revealed that the company\u2019s platforms hosted AI chatbots impersonating celebrities without their consent \u2014 including Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansson, Anne Hathaway, and Selena Gomez. The bots were available on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and went beyond harmless fun. In Reuters\u2019 tests, they claimed to be real […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4722","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4722"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4722"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4722\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cybersecurityinfocus.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Policy gaps and inappropriate content<\/h3>\n
Legal and safety concerns<\/h3>\n