Introduction
The recent boosting of artificial intelligence (AI) has speeded up the coming of a time of immeasurable progress and development. Regardless of this fact, tech companies should make sure to monitor closely the ethical problems brought forth by this era of technological progress around the world. In the age of deep fake proliferation at its peak, the thought about the role of ethical and professional responsibility of technology corporations could open a Pandora’s Box of ethical issues about the interests of individuals and the safety of society. This paper focuses on the laissez-faire approach used by the tech world nowadays, considering the moral obligations and the professional responsibilities following deep fake technology.
Ethic 1: Rule Utilitarianism
Rule Utilitarianism is the theory of the rightness of an action, which is based upon a rule that embodies maximization of the overall utility or wellbeing (Hayes et al., 2024). The rules and regulations that prevent the violation of their technologies by tech giants and using deepfakes are increasingly vital. The businesses that operate in this field should develop strong countermeasures and set out their guidelines accurately in order to prevent the dangerous negative aspects of deep fakes. Instances like that of creating and sharing deepfakes that infringe on the privacy and intellectual property rights of celebrities or well-known public figures can be countered by setting specific rules and regulations (Widder et al., 2020). This aligns with the Rule Utilitarianism principle. Indeed, these policies are essential to be enacted for the general social welfare so as to limit the unpleasant effects of AI abuse.
Transparency also points to actions on which Rule Utilitarianism highly relies. Tech companies have to realize that genuine interaction between humans and AI must prevail, and they should openly communicate about the content “generated by AI” so that the environment can be made more responsible and accountable. Hence, with their efforts, these firms are helping to educate society better, which ultimately prevents the dominance of misinformation/disinformation (Widder et al., 2020). Therefore, the moral accountability of tech companies consists of the plan of action and procedures that are aimed at the purpose of beneficiary society in general.
Ethic 2: Social Contract
In Social Contract Theory, morality is believed not to be purely a characteristic of an individual but is arrived at through an agreement of specific rules among a particular society. The topic of tech companies and deepfakes thus also entails the social contract that consists of doing the right thing, for instance, morally, as far as society accepts it. The trusting relationship established between people and technology firms shows the readiness of the parties to work towards building a safe and secure online space (Yadlin-Segal, 2021). Consequently, the ownership of these companies lies in the social realm, and they need to be the barrier against the production and distribution of digital forgeries. The rationally acting and ethically guided social contract to be followed by companies in technology becomes pivotal. They should perceive existing harm that deep fakes might generate and the sign of a deep need to increase the g effectiveness of regulation, keeping their actions in line with the common good and social values (Yadlin-Segal, 2021). This involves not only implementing the rules against misuse but also being proactive and collaborating with authorized bodies and stakeholders to come up with a system that will comprehensively address the various nascent problems that come with deepfakes.
Comparison and Contrast of Rule Utilitarianism and Social Contract
Rule Utilitarianism and Social Contract theory agree in that they both stress the necessity to follow the rules for the common good but differ in their point of view. According to the Rule Utilitarianism, the consequences of the actions are more important than the actions themselves. Consequently, the rule by which happiness should be maximized will be prioritized (Widder et al., 2020). The other aspect of Social Contract theory is that its central tenet relies on the notion that society tacitly agrees to be bound by certain ethical standards.
Rule Utilitarianism allows the issue of deepfakes and the actions or inactions of technology companies to be brought satisfactorily to an end (Yadlin-Segal, 2021). It is in favour of declaring particular rules to try lessening, and best, ending the effects caused by deep fake technology. With this comprehensive strategy intended to improve the welfare and needs of individuals and the wider society alike, the well-beingwellbeing of people is not only a goal but also an ultimate priority (Widder et al., 2020). Following the principles of Rule Utilitarianism, the tech companies shall design and implement rules that do not merely limit the effects but completely diminish the impression of the deepfakes. Some of these guidelines mighalsoll include very strict measures to stop the creation and broadcasting of negative deepfak. Moreoverer, the spread of information produced by AI should be a mainstream topic (Widder et al., 2020). By putting closer attention on the shared happiness among people and the benefit of the society as a whole, the bottom rule of Utilitarianism, namely following rules that bring about the general good and advancing the type of society that is fairer and healthier as the overall, cannot be denied.
The Social contract theory, on the other hand, stresses the idea that social agreement and collective effort are crucial factors in confronting the difficulties created by deepfakes. It portrays the inevitability of this technology company conforming to understood and acceptable laws, manners, or moral principles within the community. The Social Contract Theory contends that among individuals, the society outlines norms upon which the institutions and state conditions themselves through an implicit agreement ensuring that essential values such as safety, privacy and integrity are protected (Hayes et al., 2024). Besides, in this situation, tech companies are being required to meet a part of their social contract, so it becomes necessary to put mechanisms in place that guard the safety and wellbeing of such users. This may be a joint effort with regulatory bodies, relevant stakeholders and the general public to arrive at and enforce ethical guidelines that will govern the utilization of deep fake technology. Observing the social contract principles by technology companies can create a safe and superior web with the dignity and rights of people respected and safeguarded.
Conclusion
The last thing is that the ethical and professional responsibilities of tech companies regarding appropriateness and AI are challenging and complex in the keepsakes age. Rule Utilitarianism and the Social Contract Theory are some frameworks that offer the right consequence analysis for the problem under consideration. The philosophers in question give great emphasis to an internal governing system based on the establishment and implementation of laws that are meant for the benefit of society and its people. Deep fakes in tech companies may cause many dreadful effects, so tech companies must honestly contribute to ethical practices and present their reputation in the eyes of the public, which reflects towards protecting the individuals and organization system. As technology is bound to get better and better, we need to involve both tech companies and society in their totality so as to make the most out of the dilemma posed by deepfakes.
References
Widder, D. G., Nafus, D., Dabbish, L., & Herbsleb, J. (2022, June). Limits and possibilities for “Ethical AI” in open source: A study of deepfakes. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 2035-2046).
Yadlin-Segal, Aya, and Yael Oppenheim. “Whose dystopia is it anyway? Deepfakes and social media regulation.” Convergence 27.1 (2021): 36-51.
Hayes, S., Jandrić, P., & Green, B. J. (2024). Towards a postdigital social contract for higher education in the age of artificial intelligence. Postdigital Science and Education, pp. 1–19.
write