AI-Generated Deep Fakes and Halakhah
by R. Gil Student
Seeing is believing, until that too is taken away from us. The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) has produced powerful new tools, among them the ability to create “deepfakes,” which are highly convincing but entirely fake images, audio recordings or videos of real people. A politician may appear to endorse a controversial policy, a rabbi might seem to utter heretical ideas or a teacher could be seen acting inappropriately but it is all through manipulated media. These synthetic creations are increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality and pose serious ethical and halakhic questions, and paradoxically might also offer a solution to a difficult social problem.
I. Libelous Content
Let us begin with the most obvious victim: the individual whose likeness is misused. If a deepfake attributes scandalous or false words to a person, this constitutes classic hotza’as shem ra, false speech. Rav Yisrael Kagan (20th cen., Russia) quotes Onkelos (Lev. 19:16), who translates “Do not be a talebearer” as “lo seichol kurtzin.” Rashi (ad loc.) explains that this refers to the way gossippers motion with their eyes. Even indirect gossip, even mere motioning without any words, qualifies as forbidden lashon ha-ra (Chafetz Chaim 1:1:8 n. 13). As it says in Mishlei (Prov. 6:12-13), “A base person… winks with his eyes, scrapes with his feet, points with his fingers.” Lashon ha-ra does not have to be actual words. Posting an image or a video accusing someone of a misdeed constitutes forbidden speech, even if it is not verbal.
Hurtful content goes further. Posting a video that hurts someone’s feelings or damages someone’s reputation is a form of attack. This is biblically prohibited as ona’as devarim, hurtful and damaging speech (Bava Metzi’a 58b). You may think that this only applies to a verbal insult or attack–after all, “devarim” means words. However, the Torah (Lev. 25:17) merely says “lo sonu” and does not differentiate between methods of delivering this harm. When someone is portrayed doing or saying something inappropriate through a deepfake video, it violates their reputation and causes social, professional and emotional harm. Even if the victim is ultimately vindicated, the damage may already be irreversible.
II. Theft of a Likeness
There is also the question of image rights. Do I have halakhic control over my likeness? Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (20th cen., Israel) did not object to people being photographed without consent, arguing that it causes no tangible damage (Salmas Chaim, no. 475). In contrast, Rav Menashe Klein (20th cen., US) contends that unauthorized photography may be prohibited because a person’s image has commercial and personal value. He notes that celebrities sell their likenesses, and therefore, using someone’s image without permission can constitute a form of theft (Mishneh Halakhos 7:117). Rav Simcha Yonah Klein (cont., England) follows Rav Sonnenfeld’s view but adds an important caveat: even the lenient view forbids publicizing damaging images (Piskei Ha-Mishpat 363:14).
Rav Shlomo Aviner (cont., Israel) takes a more fundamental approach, invoking the verse, “ve-ahavta le-rei’akha kamokha” (Lev. 19:18), which means that you must treat others as you would wish to be treated (Shabbos 31a). If a person finds it offensive or degrading to have his picture used without consent, that alone may be grounds for objection (Piskei Shlomo, vol. 3, pp. 146-147).
A deepfake is not merely a picture but a full impersonation, crafted to deceive and often to defame. The halakhic violations here are compounded: falsehood, humiliation, possible theft and an affront to human dignity.
III. Misleading the Public
While the subject of the deepfake suffers personal harm, halakhah also recognizes the broader concern of deceiving the public. The Talmud (Chullin 94a) prohibits geneivas da’as, deception. Rashi explains that misleading someone, even without causing financial loss, is forbidden. Even pretending to do someone a favor, when you really did it for personal reasons, is forbidden. Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos De’os 2:6) offers other examples of deceptions that fall under this prohibition. The Torah says, “mi-dvar sheker tirchak, stay far away from falsehood” (Ex. 23:7). We are forbidden not just to lie but even to approach the point of generating falsehood.
Beyond personal injury, deepfakes pose broader communal dangers. When a large audience sees a fabricated video of a community leader making a controversial statement or a public figure endorsing a problematic idea, they are victims of falsehood. The consequences can reverberate in practical decisions and personal attitudes. In the past, we have seen disinformation sway public debates. Deepfakes could do the same on a much larger scale.
The implications are troubling. The erosion of trust in public communication affects not only our perception of individuals but also our confidence in halakhic, political, educational and journalistic institutions. When people begin to question the authenticity of everything they see, even genuine content becomes suspect. That social instability undermines public discourse. While a defamed individual suffers acutely, the collective deception may be more insidious. It destabilizes communal norms and damages the integrity of public discourse.
IV. A Silver Lining
Despite these serious concerns, the deepfake phenomenon may inadvertently contain a silver lining. Deepfakes might ultimately prompt society to think more critically about information. As people grow aware that images, videos and audio can be manipulated, they may become more discerning: Who recorded this? Where was it published? Has it been verified?
This shift could lead to a decline in so-called citizen journalism, i.e. social media reporting, and a resurgence of serious journalism. Media outlets that engage in careful fact-checking, apply editorial oversight and maintain transparent sourcing may gain renewed relevance. In an environment dominated by outrage and virality, credibility may once again become a competitive advantage.
For years, media has been pulled by the gravity of outrage and speed, chasing clicks and engagement at the expense of accuracy. The deepfake crisis may reverse that trend by incentivizing credibility over virality. In doing so, it would return media to its original mission: not to provoke, but to inform; not to inflame, but to illuminate.