Widespread Harm from AI Face-Swapping: Fraud, Defamation, and Privacy Violations in China

The article explicitly involves AI systems in the form of facial recognition technology and AI face-swapping used in fraud. It documents direct harms including privacy violations, unauthorized data collection and profiling, and criminal scams facilitated by AI-generated face-swapping. These harms correspond to violations of personal rights and harm to individuals and communities. The article also details legal and governance responses but the primary focus is on the realized harms caused by AI misuse, qualifying it as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves the use of AI face-swapping technology (an AI system) to produce and disseminate harmful content, leading to realized harm including violation of personal rights and social harm. The AI system's use directly led to criminal activity and social harm, qualifying this as an AI Incident under the framework. The legal responses further confirm the recognition of harm caused by the AI system's misuse.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping/deepfake technology) to produce and disseminate harmful content without consent, infringing on personal information and public information security. This directly causes harm to individuals' rights and to the community, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The legal prosecution and civil public interest lawsuit further confirm the harm has materialized. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.

The article focuses on the potential risks and the need for legal safeguards regarding facial recognition AI technology, which implies plausible future harms if misused. However, it does not describe any actual harm or incident caused by AI misuse or malfunction. Therefore, it fits the definition of an AI Hazard, as it warns about plausible risks and the need to prevent misuse, but no realized harm is reported.

The article explicitly involves AI systems in the form of facial recognition technology and AI face-swapping used in fraud. It describes realized harms including privacy violations, unauthorized data collection, profiling, and criminal scams facilitated by AI-generated deepfakes. These constitute violations of personal rights and harms to individuals' privacy and security, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The article also details legal and regulatory responses, but the primary focus is on the harms caused by misuse and malfunction of AI facial recognition systems and AI-generated face-swapping fraud, thus qualifying as an AI Incident rather than merely complementary information or a hazard.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (facial recognition) used in a real-world setting. The resident's complaint concerns potential privacy violations, but the court found no evidence of actual harm or illegal data misuse. The system operates within legal frameworks, and alternative access methods exist, mitigating coercion or forced use. The article focuses on the legal adjudication and interpretation of personal data protection laws as applied to AI systems, rather than reporting a new harm or imminent risk. This aligns with the definition of Complementary Information, which includes governance responses and legal proceedings related to AI systems without new incidents or hazards.

The article explicitly describes AI systems (deepfake AI face-swapping software) being used in real-world scams that have caused direct financial harm to individuals, including multi-million yuan frauds. The AI system's use in impersonation and deception is central to these harms. The article also discusses the sale and distribution of AI face-swapping tools and models, which facilitate these harms. Given the direct link between AI use and realized harm (fraud, privacy violations), this is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information. The detailed description of actual fraud cases and the role of AI in enabling them supports this classification.

The event involves the use and misuse of an AI system—facial recognition technology—that has directly led to harms including violations of personal privacy and rights, unauthorized data collection, and enabling AI-based fraud (AI face-swapping for scams). The article describes actual incidents of harm (e.g., forced facial data collection, data retention without consent, labeling consumers as suspects without knowledge) and legal investigations and responses. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the misuse of the AI system has directly caused harm to individuals' rights and privacy, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under the OECD framework.

The article explicitly involves AI systems performing real-time face swapping using deep learning techniques (AI system involvement). The use of these AI systems has directly led to financial fraud incidents causing harm to individuals (AI Incident). The article provides multiple examples of scams where AI-generated face swaps were used to deceive victims into transferring large sums of money. This meets the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly caused harm to persons (financial injury) and breaches of rights (privacy, identity). The article also discusses the ecosystem of AI face-swap software sales and training data, further supporting the direct link to harm. Therefore, the event is classified as an AI Incident.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping technology) that directly led to harm, specifically the violation of individuals' portrait rights and reputational damage. The AI system was used without consent to create manipulated videos, constituting a breach of intellectual property and personal rights. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the realized harm caused by the AI system's use.

The event involves the use of an AI system (deepfake face-swapping technology) that directly led to harm in the form of unauthorized use of individuals' images and creation of fake videos, violating their rights. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights under applicable law, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The harm is realized and ongoing, as evidenced by legal action and court findings.

The article explicitly involves AI systems, specifically facial recognition technology, which is an AI system that processes biometric data to authenticate individuals. The incidents described involve the use and misuse of this AI system leading to violations of personal privacy rights and potential harm such as identity theft and fraud, which are breaches of fundamental rights and personal security. The legal cases cited demonstrate realized harm and judicial recognition of these harms. The article also discusses the broader societal risks and calls for regulation, indicating ongoing concerns about harm. Therefore, the event qualifies as an AI Incident due to direct and indirect harm caused by the use and misuse of facial recognition AI systems.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI real-time face-swapping technology (an AI system) to impersonate celebrities in live streams for commercial gain without authorization. This unauthorized use infringes on celebrities' portrait and name rights, violating applicable laws protecting intellectual property and personal rights. Additionally, it involves misleading consumers, which can be considered harm to communities and a breach of legal obligations. The AI system's use is central to the harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article describes an AI system (face-swapping deepfake technology) being used without authorization to generate videos that harm individuals' reputations and violate their portrait rights, which constitutes a violation of human rights and harm to individuals. The involvement of the AI system in producing these videos is explicit, and the harm has materialized, as evidenced by lawsuits and court rulings. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework.

The AI system involved is an AI face-swapping app that uses deepfake technology to alter videos by replacing faces. The unauthorized use of individuals' images for profit constitutes a violation of their portrait rights, a form of human rights violation under applicable law. The harm has already occurred as the plaintiffs suffered infringement of their rights and reputational damage. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct harm caused by the AI system's use.

The article explicitly involves an AI system performing real-time face swapping to impersonate celebrities in live streams. This use directly leads to violations of portrait and reputation rights, which are protected under applicable law, thus constituting harm under the AI Incident definition (c). The harm is realized as consumers are misled and celebrities' rights are infringed, with legal cases confirming such harm. The AI system's use is central to the incident, not merely potential or speculative. Hence, the event is classified as an AI Incident.

The event involves an AI system (AI real-time face-swapping technology) used to impersonate celebrities without consent, leading to violations of portrait and name rights, which are breaches of applicable law protecting fundamental rights. This is a direct harm caused by the AI system's use, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The article details actual occurrences of this misuse and the resulting legal concerns, not just potential or hypothetical risks.

The event involves an AI system explicitly described as real-time AI face-swapping technology used in live streaming. The use of this AI system has directly led to violations of human rights, specifically portrait rights and reputation rights of celebrities, which are protected under applicable law. Additionally, the misuse of this technology in commercial live streaming can constitute false advertising and consumer deception, causing harm to consumers and the celebrities' reputations. Therefore, the event meets the criteria for an AI Incident due to realized harm stemming from the AI system's use. The article also discusses legal and regulatory responses, but the primary focus is on the harm caused by the AI system's misuse.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping and voice synthesis technology) in the commission of a fraud that directly caused financial harm to a person. The AI system's use was central to the scam's success, as it enabled the impersonation of a trusted individual via video call, leading to the victim transferring a large sum of money. This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss) to a person. The article also discusses legal and regulatory measures, but the primary focus is on the realized harm caused by AI misuse in this case.

The article explicitly involves AI systems, specifically facial recognition technology, which is an AI system used for identity verification. The incident with the gym and the consumer complaint is a real event involving the use of AI, but the harm (privacy infringement) was addressed through mediation and alternative options, preventing further harm. The article mainly discusses the societal context, privacy concerns, and the dual nature of facial recognition technology as both beneficial and potentially invasive. It does not report a direct or indirect harm caused by AI that remains unresolved or a plausible future harm event. Instead, it focuses on awareness, rights protection, and the balance of AI use, fitting the definition of Complementary Information as it provides context, societal response, and reflections on AI's role without reporting a new incident or hazard.

The event involves the use of an AI system (facial recognition) in a real-world setting, and the issue arises from its use impacting personal privacy and information security. However, there is no indication that harm such as injury, rights violations, or other significant harms have occurred. Instead, the article focuses on the potential risks and the response to a consumer complaint leading to improved practices. Therefore, this is best classified as Complementary Information, as it provides context and governance-related response to AI use rather than describing a direct or indirect AI Incident or a plausible future hazard.

The event involves AI systems (real-time face-swapping AI) used in live-streaming to impersonate celebrities without consent, directly infringing on their portrait and name rights, which are protected legal rights. The article confirms that this unauthorized use is widespread and has led to complaints and legal concerns, indicating realized harm. The AI system's use is central to the harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of human rights or legal obligations. The discussion of platform liability and legal frameworks further supports the classification as an incident rather than a mere hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI systems for real-time face swapping to impersonate celebrities in live streams for commercial gain without authorization. This use directly causes harm by infringing on the celebrities' portrait rights and misleading consumers, which fits the definition of violations of human rights and legal obligations. The AI system's use is central to the harm, making this an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event involves the use and misuse of an AI system—facial recognition technology—which processes biometric data to authenticate individuals. The article describes actual harms experienced by individuals, such as privacy violations, forced use of facial recognition without alternatives, and risks of identity theft and fraud due to data leakage. These constitute violations of personal rights and potential harm to individuals' property and security. The legal cases cited confirm that harm has occurred and that courts have ruled against improper use. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly or indirectly led to violations of rights and harm to individuals. The article also discusses governance and regulatory responses, but the primary focus is on realized harms and misuse incidents.

The event explicitly involves an AI system (a face-swapping app) that uses AI technology to generate videos by swapping faces. The unauthorized use of the plaintiffs' images and the creation of fake videos constitute a violation of their rights (specifically portrait rights), which is a breach of applicable law protecting intellectual property and personal rights. Since the AI system's use has directly led to legal harm (unauthorized use and infringement), this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI real-time face-swapping technology) to impersonate celebrities in live streams for commercial purposes without consent, which constitutes a violation of portrait and name rights. This is a direct harm to individuals' rights and is a breach of applicable laws protecting these rights. The article describes actual ongoing use and harm, not just potential risk, thus qualifying as an AI Incident under the framework. The involvement of AI in the development and use of the face-swapping system is explicit, and the harm (infringement of rights) is realized and ongoing.

The event explicitly describes the use of AI face-swapping technology (an AI system) to impersonate celebrities in live streams for commercial purposes. This use infringes on the celebrities' legal rights to their image and name, and may harm their reputation, which qualifies as a violation of human rights and legal protections. Therefore, this is an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm in the form of rights violations and potential reputational damage.

The event involves the use of AI systems (deepfake AI technologies for face and voice swapping) that have directly led to harm, specifically financial fraud and scams targeting individuals, which constitutes harm to persons and communities. The article describes realized harm (scams causing financial loss) and the misuse of AI technology for illegal purposes. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to violations causing harm (financial loss) and risks to individuals. The article also discusses responses and mitigation but the primary focus is on the ongoing harm caused by AI misuse.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping technology) that has directly led to harm in the form of fraud and deception, which are violations of rights and cause harm to individuals and communities. The reported police case confirms realized harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework, as the AI system's use has directly led to harm.

The event involves the use of AI systems (AI face-swapping and voice synthesis) to commit fraud, which has directly led to significant financial harm to victims. The AI system's use in impersonation and deception is central to the scam incidents described. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly caused harm (financial loss) to individuals. The article also includes expert opinions and prevention advice, but the primary focus is on the realized harm caused by AI-enabled scams.

The event clearly involves AI systems, specifically AI face-swapping (deepfake) technology used in live streaming and video content creation. The article documents actual harms caused by these AI systems, including infringement of celebrities' portrait rights, misleading consumers in commercial transactions, and reputational damage. These harms fall under violations of human rights and legal obligations protecting fundamental rights (portrait rights, name rights, reputation), as well as harm to communities through misinformation and deception. The involvement of AI in the development and use of these face-swapping technologies is explicit, and the harms are realized, not merely potential. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly describes multiple cases where AI systems have been used maliciously or have caused harm, such as AI face-swap scams resulting in millions lost, and AI-generated false content affecting stock prices. These are direct harms caused by AI use. The discussion of regulatory efforts and watermarking technologies is complementary information but secondary to the primary report of harms. Hence, the event is best classified as an AI Incident due to the direct financial and societal harms caused by AI misuse and malfunction.

The article describes the use of AI systems (real-time face-swapping models) to impersonate celebrities in live broadcasts for commercial purposes. This use directly leads to harm: consumer fraud (deceiving consumers about the identity of the seller) and violations of celebrities' portrait and privacy rights. These harms fall under violations of human rights and legal obligations (c) and other significant harms (e.g., fraud). Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to realized harms.

The event involves the use of AI systems (AI face-swapping and voice synthesis) in the commission of fraud, which directly caused financial harm to victims, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The AI systems were used maliciously to impersonate others and deceive victims, leading to realized harm (financial loss). The article also references regulatory measures to address these harms, but the primary focus is on the realized harm caused by AI-enabled scams, not just potential or complementary information.

The event involves the use of an AI system (real-time AI face-swapping) in live streaming to impersonate celebrities without consent, which is a misuse of AI technology. This misuse leads to direct harm: violation of celebrities' portrait and privacy rights (a breach of legal protections) and consumer fraud (deceptive practices harming consumers). Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to violations of rights and fraud.

The event involves the use of AI systems (face-swapping and voice synthesis) in a fraudulent scheme that directly caused significant financial harm to a victim. The AI system's use was central to the scam's success, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system's use directly led to harm to a person. The article also discusses responses and prevention, but the primary focus is the reported scam incident itself, not just complementary information or potential hazards.

The article explicitly involves AI systems (deepfake face-swapping and deep synthesis technologies) used maliciously to commit fraud, causing direct financial harm to individuals. The harms include financial loss, privacy violations, and potential copyright infringement. The AI system's use is central to the incident, as the fraud would not be possible without the AI-generated deepfake videos. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework, as the AI system's use has directly led to harm. The article also discusses responses and detection efforts, but the primary focus is on the realized harms caused by AI misuse.

The event involves the use of AI systems (deep synthesis technologies like AI face and voice swapping) that are actively being used to perpetrate fraud and scams, causing harm to individuals and financial institutions (harm to property and communities). Since these scams are occurring and causing harm, this qualifies as an AI Incident. The article describes realized harm through AI-enabled fraudulent activities, not just potential risks or general commentary, thus it is not merely a hazard or complementary information.

The event involves the use of AI systems (AI deepfake face-swapping and voice synthesis) in the commission of a financial scam, which directly caused significant financial harm to a person. The AI system's use in impersonation and deception is central to the incident. Although some technical experts question the current feasibility of real-time AI face-swapping in video calls, the police have confirmed the involvement of AI technology in the fraud. The article also references prior similar incidents and the broader risk landscape, but the primary focus is on a concrete AI-enabled scam that has already caused harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the OECD framework.

The event involves the use of AI systems (AI face-swapping technology) in the commission of fraud that caused direct financial harm to individuals. The AI system's use was pivotal in increasing the credibility of the scam, leading to significant monetary losses. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss) to persons. The article also discusses the nature of the AI involvement, the modus operandi, and preventive advice, but the primary focus is on the realized harm caused by AI-enabled scams.

The article explicitly describes AI systems (e.g., generative AI models, AI face-swapping technology) being used maliciously or causing harm, such as scams resulting in millions lost, deceptive use of AI-generated celebrity faces, and AI-generated false stock market information leading to price crashes. These are direct harms linked to AI use, fitting the definition of AI Incidents. The discussion of regulatory and technical measures is complementary information but does not overshadow the primary focus on actual harms. Hence, the event is best classified as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly describes the use of AI deepfake technologies (AI face-swapping and voice synthesis) in fraudulent activities that have directly caused financial harm to victims, such as the 430 million yuan scam in Inner Mongolia and the 2019 international energy company CEO voice imitation scam. These are clear examples of AI systems being used maliciously, resulting in violations of law and harm to property and individuals. The discussion of legal risks and regulatory frameworks further supports the recognition of these harms as incidents rather than mere potential hazards or complementary information. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly mentions AI face-swapping technology used in live commerce to impersonate celebrities without consent, constituting fraud and infringement of portrait and privacy rights. These harms fall under violations of human rights and legal obligations, as well as significant harm to consumers through deception. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to realized harms.

The article explicitly involves AI systems used for face-swapping and generating fake explicit images without consent, which directly causes harm to individuals (psychological harm, violation of privacy and rights). The AI system's use is central to the harm described, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harms include violations of human rights and harm to communities through defamation and harassment. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event involves the use of AI systems (face and voice swapping technologies) in active scams that have caused harm to individuals' property (financial loss). This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm. The article also discusses responses and preventive measures, but the primary focus is on the realized harm caused by AI-enabled fraud.

The article reports on a company's statement about its AI technology use and its collaboration on an anti-fraud platform. There is no indication of any harm caused or plausible harm that could arise from the company's AI use. The mention of AI-related fraud cases is contextual, but the company clarifies it does not use face-swapping technology. This is informational and does not describe an incident or hazard. Therefore, it is Complementary Information.

The event involves the use of AI systems (deepfake AI for face and voice swapping) that have directly led to harm, specifically financial fraud and monetary loss to individuals and institutions. The AI system's use in creating highly realistic fake videos and voices is central to the scams described, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident due to realized harm (financial loss) caused by AI-enabled deception. The article also discusses the development, use, and misuse of these AI systems in a way that has already caused harm, not just potential harm.

The article explicitly describes AI systems being used in scams that have directly led to financial harm to individuals, such as the case in Inner Mongolia where AI voice and face synthesis were used to impersonate a friend and scam 4.3 million yuan. This constitutes an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly caused harm to persons (financial loss). The article also discusses the broader societal and regulatory responses, but the primary focus is on the realized harms from AI-enabled fraud, not just potential or complementary information. Therefore, the event is classified as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly describes AI systems used to create unauthorized AI-generated singing and face-swapping videos that infringe on voice rights, portrait rights, and reputation rights of individuals. These infringements constitute violations of intellectual property and personal rights, which are harms under the AI Incident definition (violations of human rights or breach of legal protections). The harms are realized, not just potential, as the article discusses actual cases and legal recourse. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident.

The event involves the use of AI face-swapping systems to impersonate celebrities for commercial gain and to commit fraud, directly leading to violations of portrait rights, name rights, reputation damage, and financial losses to victims. These harms fall under violations of human rights and significant harm to individuals and communities. The article also references legal frameworks and societal responses but the primary focus is on the realized harms caused by AI misuse. Hence, it meets the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly describes AI face-swapping technology being used in telecommunication scams that successfully defrauded victims of large amounts of money, which is a direct harm to individuals (financial harm). This meets the criteria for an AI Incident as the AI system's use directly led to harm. The article also includes complementary information about regulatory and societal responses, but the primary focus is on the realized harm from AI-enabled fraud.

The event involves AI systems explicitly used to generate fake explicit images ('AI换脸' or AI face-swapping) that are disseminated to defame and harass individuals. The harms include violations of privacy, defamation, and psychological injury to victims, which are direct consequences of the AI system's use. The article details realized harm, including mental health impacts and social disruption for victims, meeting the criteria for an AI Incident. The involvement of AI in the creation and spread of harmful content is central to the incident, not merely potential or background information.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping technology) in the commission of fraud, which is a direct harm to individuals (harm to persons through deception and financial loss). The AI system's misuse has directly led to realized harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The article describes actual harm caused by the AI system's use, not just potential harm or general commentary, so it is classified as an AI Incident.

The event involves the use of AI systems (real-time AI face-swapping technology) that directly lead to harms including violation of intellectual property rights (celebrity portrait rights), consumer fraud (deceptive marketing), and broader social harm (disruption of trust and information integrity). The harms are realized and ongoing, not merely potential. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the framework because the AI system's use has directly led to violations of rights and harm to communities.

The article explicitly describes the use of AI systems (AI face swap/deepfake technology) that have directly led to harms such as fraud, identity theft, defamation, and violations of personal rights. These harms fall under violations of human rights and legal obligations, as well as harm to individuals' reputations and property (financial fraud). Since these harms are occurring and linked to the use of AI systems, this qualifies as an AI Incident. The article also discusses regulatory and governance responses, but the primary focus is on the realized harms caused by AI face swap technology.

The article explicitly describes the use of AI systems for face-swapping (deepfake) technology that has directly led to harms such as fraud, defamation, and violations of personal rights. These constitute violations of human rights and harm to individuals and communities. The discussion of ongoing legal and regulatory responses is secondary to the primary focus on the harms caused by the AI system's use. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to realized harms.

The article explicitly describes AI face-swapping technology as being used in multiple fraud and criminal cases, causing harm to individuals' rights and safety. This constitutes realized harm (violations of rights, fraud, defamation) directly linked to the use of an AI system. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident. The discussion of regulatory measures and calls for multi-stakeholder governance are complementary information but do not negate the presence of actual harm caused by AI misuse.

The article explicitly describes AI-powered face-swapping technology used maliciously to create and distribute non-consensual pornographic images and videos, which directly harms the victims by violating their privacy, damaging their reputation, and causing psychological trauma. The AI system's role is pivotal in generating these realistic fake images that are difficult to distinguish from real photos, enabling harassment and defamation. This constitutes a violation of human rights and causes harm to individuals and communities, meeting the definition of an AI Incident.

The event involves the use of AI systems (face-swapping and voice synthesis) in the commission of a telecom fraud that directly caused significant financial harm to a victim. This meets the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss) to a person. Although the article also discusses prevention and regulatory measures, the core event is a realized harm caused by AI misuse, not just a potential hazard or complementary information.

The event involves the use of AI systems (face and voice swapping technologies) in active scams that have directly led to personal financial harm, which fits the definition of an AI Incident. The article details actual cases of harm caused by AI-enabled fraud, not just potential risks or general commentary. Therefore, it qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm caused by AI misuse in fraud.

The article explicitly describes AI systems being used maliciously or causing harm: AI face-swapping for fraudulent sales, AI-generated false text causing stock price collapse, and widespread scams and misinformation. These are direct harms to people and communities, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. While it also discusses regulatory and technical responses (Complementary Information), the main narrative centers on the harms caused by AI misuse, making AI Incident the appropriate classification.

The article describes concrete cases where AI systems have been used maliciously or have caused harm, such as AI face-swap scams resulting in millions lost by victims and AI-generated false content affecting stock market behavior. These are direct harms caused by AI use, fitting the definition of AI Incidents. The discussion of regulatory responses and watermarking technologies serves as complementary information but does not negate the presence of actual incidents. Therefore, the primary classification is AI Incident.

The event involves the use and misuse of AI deepfake face-swapping systems that have directly led to financial fraud harming individuals, which qualifies as harm to persons (a). The article details actual incidents where AI deepfake technology was used to deceive and defraud victims of large sums of money, thus constituting an AI Incident. The discussion of detection challenges and regulatory measures serves as complementary information but does not negate the presence of realized harm. Therefore, the primary classification is AI Incident.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping technology) in the use phase, where the AI system is used to manipulate live video streams to replace faces. This use directly leads to harm in the form of consumer deception and fraud, which is a violation of legal obligations protecting consumer rights and intellectual property (celebrity likeness rights). Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to a breach of legal rights and consumer harm.

The article describes multiple e-commerce live streams using AI face-swapping technology to impersonate well-known celebrities without their permission. This involves AI systems generating or modifying video content to replace the real faces of streamers with those of celebrities, which constitutes a misuse of AI technology leading to violations of personal and intellectual property rights. The harm is realized as the celebrities' likenesses are exploited without consent, potentially misleading viewers and damaging the celebrities' rights. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to the direct involvement of AI in causing violations of rights.

The article explicitly mentions AI face-swapping technology (an AI system) being used to create realistic fake appearances of celebrities in live streams, misleading consumers and infringing on the celebrities' legal rights. The legal cases cited confirm that harm has occurred due to unauthorized use of AI-generated face swaps for profit. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to violations of rights and consumer harm caused by the AI system's use.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI real-time face-swapping technology to impersonate celebrities in live-streaming sales, which misleads consumers and results in financial losses. The AI system's use is central to the harm caused, as it enables the deception. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm (financial loss) to people. Therefore, the event is classified as an AI Incident.

The use of AI face-swapping technology to impersonate celebrities in live streams constitutes a violation of intellectual property and personal rights, which falls under violations of human rights or breach of applicable law protecting such rights. The AI system's use directly leads to harm by misleading consumers and potentially damaging the celebrities' reputations. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm caused by the AI system's use.

The use of AI face-swapping to impersonate celebrities in live streams directly leads to consumer deception and fraud, which is a violation of legal rights and harms consumers by inducing them to make decisions based on false information. The AI system's use here is central to the harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident involving violations of rights and legal obligations.

The article explicitly describes AI deepfake face-swapping technology (an AI system) being used in livestreams to impersonate celebrities without consent, which constitutes a violation of portrait and name rights (a breach of legal and fundamental rights). The use of AI-generated faces to deceive consumers in sales livestreams causes consumer harm and fraud. Moreover, the AI face-swapping technology was used in a criminal scam that caused financial harm to a victim. These are direct harms caused by the development and use of AI systems. Hence, this qualifies as an AI Incident under the definitions provided.

The event involves AI systems explicitly (AI face-swapping technology) used in live streaming to impersonate celebrities without consent, causing violations of portrait rights (a form of intellectual property and personal rights violation) and misleading consumers, which constitutes harm. The misuse of AI here directly leads to legal and ethical harms, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The article also references regulatory measures and platform responsibilities, but these are complementary to the main issue of realized harm from AI misuse.

The event involves an AI system explicitly described as AI-based real-time face-swapping software used in live streaming. The use of this AI system has directly led to violations of human rights, specifically the infringement of portrait and reputation rights of celebrities, which are protected under applicable law. Additionally, the misuse of this technology in commercial live streaming can constitute false advertising, causing harm to consumers and reputational harm to the celebrities. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized legal and reputational harms caused by the AI system's use.

The event involves AI systems explicitly through AI real-time face-swapping technology used in live-streaming. The use of AI to impersonate celebrities without consent constitutes misuse of AI systems leading to direct harm: deception of consumers (harm to communities and property through fraud) and violation of portrait and reputation rights (human rights violation). The article documents actual occurrences of this misuse, legal actions taken, and the societal impact, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The harm is realized, not just potential, and the AI system's role is pivotal in enabling the impersonation and deception.

The event involves the use of an AI system (face-swapping AI technology) in the commission of fraud that caused direct financial harm to a person. The AI system's use directly led to harm (financial loss), fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The article focuses on realized harm caused by AI-enabled deception, not just potential harm or general information, so it is classified as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly mentions the use of AI face-swapping technology to impersonate someone during a video call, which directly led to a scam causing significant financial loss. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly caused harm (financial loss) to a person. The presence of the AI system is clear, the harm is realized, and the event involves malicious use of AI technology.

An AI system (AI face-swapping technology) is explicitly involved in the event. Its use to impersonate celebrities in live commerce is a misuse that causes direct harm: consumer fraud and violation of celebrities' rights. The article mentions legal regulations requiring clear labeling to prevent confusion, indicating recognized harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm from the AI system's use.

The article explicitly mentions AI face-swapping technology being used in scams that have caused real financial harm to victims, such as a technology company owner losing 4.3 million RMB due to AI face-swap fraud. This constitutes direct harm to individuals (financial harm) caused by the use of an AI system (face-swapping AI). Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm (fraud and financial loss).

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping technology) that was used in a scam resulting in a financial loss of 18.73 million yuan to a victim. This constitutes harm to a person (financial harm) caused indirectly by the use of AI technology. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm. The article also includes a public awareness video demonstrating the technology's capabilities, but the primary harm is the scam incident.

The event involves the use of AI face-swapping technology (an AI system) by scammers to impersonate others online, which is a misuse of AI leading to harm through fraud. The article highlights the direct use of AI in deceptive practices that can harm individuals, thus qualifying as an AI Incident due to violations of rights and harm to communities through fraud and deception.

The event involves an AI system (AI face-swapping technology) used to create realistic fake faces in videos. The Chinese authorities' warning indicates that such AI use could plausibly lead to fraud and deception harms, which fall under harm to communities and individuals. Since the article focuses on raising awareness about the potential misuse of AI face-swapping for scams rather than reporting a specific realized harm, this qualifies as an AI Hazard rather than an AI Incident. The AI system's development and use could plausibly lead to incidents of fraud and harm, but no direct harm is described as having occurred yet.

The event involves the use of AI systems for real-time face swapping, which is a clear AI application. The technology is being sold and used to impersonate celebrities during live video calls, which can deceive and harm others psychologically. This constitutes harm to persons and communities through deception and potential violation of rights. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm (psychological harm and deception).

The article explicitly describes AI systems (deepfake face-swapping software) being used in real-world scams that have caused significant financial harm to individuals. The AI technology is central to the fraud, enabling impersonation and deception that directly led to monetary losses. The article also discusses the development, sale, and misuse of these AI systems, as well as legal and regulatory considerations. Therefore, this event qualifies as an AI Incident due to direct harm caused by the AI system's use in fraudulent activities.

The event involves the use of an AI system (AI face-swapping/deepfake technology) to produce harmful content without consent, leading to realized harm including violation of personal information rights and social public interest. The AI system's use directly caused these harms, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The legal actions and societal harm described confirm the materialization of harm rather than potential harm, so this is not merely a hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly involves AI systems (deepfake AI face-swapping tools and generative AI) and discusses harms caused by their misuse (financial scams). However, it does not describe a new or specific AI incident occurring at the time of reporting but rather provides expert commentary, research updates, and recommendations for public education and detection methods. Therefore, it is best classified as Complementary Information, as it supports understanding of AI incidents and hazards without reporting a new incident or hazard itself.

The event involves an AI system capable of real-time face swapping (deepfake technology) used in video calls. The use of this AI system has directly led to harm in the form of deception and psychological distress (scaring colleagues), which qualifies as harm to people. Therefore, this constitutes an AI Incident due to the realized harm caused by the AI system's use.

The article explicitly mentions an AI system (deepfake AI face-swapping technology) being used in a scam that caused significant financial harm to a person, which qualifies as injury or harm to a person (financial harm). It also discusses the broader context of AI-generated content being used for phishing, fake news, and scams, which are direct harms to individuals and communities. The involvement of AI in the development, use, and misuse leading to realized harm meets the criteria for an AI Incident. The article also discusses mitigation and detection efforts, but the primary focus is on the harm caused and the ongoing risk, not just complementary information or future hazards.

The article explicitly describes AI systems used for real-time face-swapping (deepfake) technology to create unauthorized and harmful content involving celebrities. This use has directly caused harm by infringing on portrait rights, damaging reputations, and distributing harmful content, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The involvement of AI in the development and use of these deepfake systems is clear, and the harms are realized and ongoing. Therefore, this event is classified as an AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves an AI system used to generate deepfake videos without consent, causing realized harm to individuals' privacy and public interest. The AI system's use directly led to violations of personal information protection laws and social harm, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident. The legal response and societal harm confirm the materialization of harm rather than a potential risk, distinguishing it from an AI Hazard or Complementary Information. Therefore, this is classified as an AI Incident.

The article explicitly mentions AI deepfake technology being used in a real fraud case causing financial harm (430 million yuan lost). This is a direct harm to a person caused by the use of an AI system (deepfake generation). The discussion of detection and watermarking is complementary information but does not negate the fact that harm has occurred. The AI system's use in fraud meets the definition of an AI Incident as it directly led to harm to a person. Hence, the classification is AI Incident.

The event involves AI systems explicitly described as real-time AI face-swapping software (deepfake technology) used in fraudulent schemes that have directly caused financial harm to individuals (e.g., scams involving millions of yuan). This meets the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use has directly led to harm (financial loss, violation of rights). The article also covers the ecosystem of AI face-swap software sales, training data, and legal implications, but the primary focus is on realized harms from AI misuse in scams, not just potential risks or general information. Therefore, the classification is AI Incident.