[HN Gopher] YouTube will show labels on videos that use AI
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube will show labels on videos that use AI
Author : mikece
Score : 97 points
Date : 2023-11-14 20:58 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (9to5google.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (9to5google.com)
| thejarren wrote:
| I have mixed feelings about this.
|
| For the past few months, I've been marking videos as "not
| interested" because they are AI-generated, and I can tell.
|
| But the flip side is that as these tools become more prevalent,
| it's not immediately clear to me how this line will be defined.
|
| If people are using AI to generate scripts but are still reading
| them, does that count? Or if they're using AI to generate the
| images but have written the script, does that count?
|
| It just seems messy, but I'm glad they're taking at least an
| active approach to it. I also think it will be a sign of how
| Google as a whole will treat AI generated content over time.
| headcanon wrote:
| I think if you're asking those questions then you're ahead of
| where 99% of people are thinking about when they think about
| "AI" (as are most of the folks on this site by selection bias).
| I think as these tools mature and get included in more standard
| tools like Adobe is doing then the distinction will blur enough
| that there will be some new criteria. And at that point maybe
| people won't care enough to have that distinction. But right
| now, people care a lot and its (mostly) obvious enough, hence
| the policy.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| Honestly, I don't think web platforms care about the artistic
| integrity or anything like that. It's more that they don't want
| to have to be the storage destination for anyone that can
| figure out how to hook up a video generator to a while(). This
| segment of the userbase has the ability to grow to be 99% of
| your resource usage overnight, and with video being the most
| expensive form of media, it just isn't practical to welcome
| them with open arms.
|
| See also: why no consumer backup platform offers unlimited
| quantities anymore. It only takes like a couple hundred
| hoarders to bleed you dry, and those guys don't even stand to
| profit from the activity like the get-rich-quick youtube and
| kindle schemes are promising.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| what if you are writing the scripts and using text to speech to
| read the scripts, but the text to speech tools now have AI
| baked in them.
|
| what if you are animating the content but using some tool with
| AI components in it.
|
| Not only does it seem messy but in the long run not feasible.
| filterfiber wrote:
| I've always struggled with where people draw the line.
|
| Video scripts have been near algorythmic for humans already. Does
| using chatgpt to make your script count as AI made? What if you
| gave it an outline, walked through it, and guided it to what you
| wanted - e.g. grammerly?
|
| If you use machine learning to remove background noise,
| backgrounds in general?
|
| Generated stock images/props/scenes for video essays?
|
| If you made the entire video by hand but use text2speech?
|
| I think that "the script, images, and voice were all chatGPT" is
| obviously "synthetic", but that's just the extreme. Humans have
| been using technology to augment their creation abilities
| forever.
|
| My fear is a large amount of human made content will be called
| "synthetic" because some specific part used "AI" (which nowadays
| refers to literally any procedural/statistical/machine learning I
| guess?)
| believ3 wrote:
| Yeah, it seems like the only "general solution" to this problem
| is to measure the number of "human work hours" that went into
| the production of a specific type of "content".
|
| Content would then be labeled as "AI generated" if the "human
| work hours" was less than X hours (like 0.5 hours).
|
| Whereas content would not be labelled as "AI generated" if the
| "human work hours" was greater than or equal to X hours (like
| 0.5 hours).
|
| That would likely require sharing with YouTube not just the
| final work product, but rather _all_ the iterative work product
| that led to the creation of the final work product (i.e.,
| earlier drafts). When YouTube could calculate the number of
| "human work hours" based on the incremental creation/edit
| histories when analyzing all the drafts.
|
| This is a very hard problem and unlikely to actually be solved
| in this way.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| So your solution is proof of work?
| Andrex wrote:
| It's blurry and will only get blurrier.
|
| Maybe there is no line to draw, and maybe that's OK.
|
| This all feels so new I'm hesitant to form strong feelings, but
| I do think transparency while not required is appreciated. With
| knowledge, I can draw my own conclusion. Without it, I may end
| up feeling "duped."
|
| Generally I want to continue enjoying human-created art. If
| something is "more" human-made than not, that's a factor I'll
| weigh as "better" and more authentic in my mind. But I'm also
| trending towards preferring indie dramas over CG-filled
| blockbusters, so I'm not pretending to be any sort of
| bellwether.
| pawelmurias wrote:
| The line is clear, deepfake stuff is supposed to be labeled.
| This is not a luddite moral panic measure that would label
| scripts.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Excellent news - we need to label ai generated news, movies,
| code, and so on. We also need a way to prevent data grabbing -
| perhaps DRM for text and images.
| Minor49er wrote:
| DRM has failed consistently in the past. Why would it work this
| time?
| gumballindie wrote:
| I dont know - but a way to protect content should be
| implemented. Otherwise what's the plan? Let corporations
| harvest ip and open source code then resell it, while we cant
| do the same with theirs? Needs to be a level playing field.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| Have you read the Biden EO on AI?
|
| The open source AI community has a lot more to worry about
| than just trying to maintain a level playing field with
| corporations.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Corporate ai is going to be useless if not trained
| against quality content. That means blogs. If you can ban
| microsoft's openai from taking your content for free and
| you allow only open source projects with attribution to
| do so then the advantage is yours. DRM wouldnt be
| effective against non corporate, but against corporate
| you'd have proof that they took something which you
| explicitly didnt allow - cant claim "dont put it on the
| internets if you dont want it stolen".
|
| Also open source licensing should change to prevent them
| from taking advantage.
|
| Plenty of non ai open source code that's been taken for
| free by billionaire corporations that give nothing back,
| yet more, they order workers around.
|
| Ai can be a tool to replace exactly those that wish to
| replace everyone else.
| Minor49er wrote:
| What do you mean by "protect content"?
| Adverblessly wrote:
| Abolish copyright and then you get to do the same with
| theirs, level playing field ;)
| jachee wrote:
| > DRM for text and images
|
| Ew, ew, ew, ew, ew. No! I hope that was sarcasm. DRM for
| everything else so far is already a mistake. Do _not_ put that
| evil on me, RickyBobby.
| verdverm wrote:
| I think you may mean a way to prove provenance, not DRM
|
| There is good prior art happening in the software supply chain,
| the problem for media content is that you want something like a
| hardware signature created before software enters the fray
| CaptainFever wrote:
| > DRM for text and images
|
| Please, no. We need less IP, not more.
| KyleBerezin wrote:
| When the Russo-Ukrainian war started, there was a glut of AI-
| driven 'news' stories on youtube. They had some details correct,
| but it seemed like a grab-bag of random events from the last
| month rehashed as a new news story. The videos often had
| thousands of views, despite the fact that much of the story was
| fictitious. I tend to not watch anything that isn't at least
| narrated by a human anymore. If someone didn't invest the time to
| make it, it probably isn't worth investing the time to watch it.
| jakubadamw wrote:
| There were also deep fake videos of the Ukrainian president
| going around meant to demoralise the Ukrainian society and the
| Ukrainian army, specifically.
| chx wrote:
| Let's face it, the Zelenskyy deepfake at the time was
| _hilarious_ https://i.imgur.com/XSRIBz2.jpg
| DarkmSparks wrote:
| What good is putting a "uses AI" on every single YT video
| exactly?
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I was thinking the same. What does "use AI" even mean? For
| example if you ask Bard for video theme ideas, did you "use
| AI?"
|
| And as time goes on this line is going to get even more murky
| with AI creeping into software like Microsoft Word, video
| editing suites, Photoshop, et al.
|
| Based on the description it sounds like this has nothing to do
| with "AI" and is more flag videos that artificially create
| events that may not have occurred or as some would call it
| "fake."
| sonya-ai wrote:
| AI is closer to becoming synonymous with fake :/
| pixl97 wrote:
| I mean artificial flavor is associated with fake flavor, so
| it's not much of a surprise.
| everfree wrote:
| It's also a label that means nothing in practice, just
| like "uses ai".
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Headline made me think they were going to 'detect' AI use and
| display a label, but it's that creators will be required to
| 'disclose' AI-use. Good luck.
| dheera wrote:
| "AI" is very hard to define.
|
| Is noise cancellation AI? Is my use of GPT to reword one
| sentence of a speech AI? Is a face-detection autofocus system
| AI? Is automatically fixing my hair and removing a pimple or
| two AI?
| crazygringo wrote:
| From the article it's much clearer.
|
| Paraphrasing, it's using AI to produce
| visual/audio/environmental deepfakes in a seemingly factual
| context.
|
| E.g. a comedy sketch doesn't need to be labeled, but if
| you're putting words in a politician's mouth or adding 12
| more rockets to a video that only had 2, then yeah.
|
| In other words it's exclusively to combat misinformation and
| disinformation.
| mrtksn wrote:
| YouTube is the last high-quality web 2.0 service for me, until I
| steer away from my subscriptions.
|
| If I wander a few videos too far away I start seeing videos about
| reptilians controlling the world on channels with 8M subscribers
| and they show "footage of people shapeshifting caught on camera",
| completely fabricated alternative history, flat earthers
| uncovering the grand conspiracy of the globalist etc.
|
| I don't know how AI is worse than this. Also, apparently it's
| based on the creator disclosing the use of AI in the creation
| process. I guess the only "authentic" videos will be those of
| shape shifting reptilians and proof videos that US never landed
| on the moon. Kind of pointless.
| rngname22 wrote:
| If you could pick a curated video catalog, where a human
| editorial team accepted or declined new video submissions at
| upload time, and a human team decided what videos ought to be
| featured / amplified more broadly to various user clusters,
| would you prefer that to an open system where anyone could
| upload and ML decided that some users enjoy seeing reptilian
| conspiracies but a particular group of moderators/curators
| weren't the arbitrators of truth and taste and moral purity?
|
| (not a loaded question, and it is possible different companies
| could emerge that would compete on the basis of their
| taste/curation/moderation policies. also equally possible it
| would be too costly/ unprofitable for the market to bear many
| smaller competing entities).
|
| I think perhaps there's a third option but we just haven't
| really defined and figured it out yet. Some mixture of
| crowdsourced taste/moderation plus top down taste/moderation
| plus unfiltered UGC. Twitter's new user-generated Community
| Notes might be a good example of a step in a new direction.
| Social media is still relatively new.
| kube-system wrote:
| I think the root of the problem is presuming that
| "engagement" is always good. Engagement can be for multiple
| reasons, and the problem will be solved as soon as we can
| figure out how to more qualitatively measure engagement.
| mrtksn wrote:
| I think I'm happy with the current system, I'm anti-
| censorship and IMHO any content that doesn't harm someone
| directly should never be deleted.
|
| I am on the side of personal responsibility, that is, any
| content should be associated with its creator, and it should
| follow them. If someone posts completely ridiculous video,
| that video should affect their personal lives. If they change
| mind and apologize, that should be accepted too. That's
| basically how real life relations work.
|
| I just find the labeling as AI pointless.
| swatcoder wrote:
| > arbitrators of truth and taste and moral purity
|
| I have _not once_ looked at TV network executives, publishing
| house editors, museum curators, retail inventory buyers,
| librarians, gallerists, or magazine editors as any of those
| things. Why would somebody do so for video curation?
|
| You don't need some complicated top down bottom up
| crowdsourced ML blah blah blah. You just need to be able to
| contextualize content to the curator. Which is what people
| naturally do when there is an accountable curator.
|
| Perhaps people who grew up recently only know content as
| endless troves of machine-curated feeds with no
| accountability or attributability, but that's actually just a
| very ahistorical side effect of Section 230.
|
| Every other way of experiencing media has always been through
| some curated context, with a specific entity you can point at
| as the responsible curator, and through which you color your
| experience of the content.
|
| That's not to say people couldn't be misled in that model as
| well, but this whole "curators are the arbiter of truth"
| thing has no real or historical ground. Explicit curation
| actually offers the very opposite thing: recognizable,
| accountable, obvious context.
| read_if_gay_ wrote:
| > videos about reptilians controlling the world on channels
| with 8M subscribers
|
| Link?
| mrtksn wrote:
| For example, a shapeshifter video:
| https://youtu.be/9UCLykdar_k?si=ScpO4zcT99K0Ryf_
| gosub100 wrote:
| I watch about 20-30m per day of youtube (not counting listening
| to videos to put me to sleep) and I've never encountered this.
| The worst I have seen is cheap knockoff channels with text-to-
| speech bot voices, which I suspect are just reading pirated
| textbooks to stock footage. I dislike people doing that, but
| there was nothing dubious about the content itself.
|
| One thing I'm very cautious about is clicking on rage-bait
| links from other people. My best friend likes watching dramatic
| cop-encounters and shares them with me, but I'm always hesitant
| to click because I'm afraid it will start suggesting them
| without ability to stop. I can't say if this will work for you,
| but I aggressively use the "don't show me this" and "tell us
| why: I don't like the video". I rarely use the "don't recommend
| channel" (but wouldn't hesitate to use it if I ever got
| suggested pseudoscience or fake-news bs).
| hutzlibu wrote:
| " but I'm always hesitant to click because I'm afraid it will
| start suggesting them without ability to stop."
|
| The only workaround I know of, is using incoknito tabs/new
| profiles/different account. It should be supported out of the
| box, to watch a video with the option to not include that
| into your profile.
|
| (my account is messed up beyound hope, for not doing this, I
| can only start a new one, but I don't use yt that much
| anyway)
| pphysch wrote:
| "USDA Organic" labels for digital content, this will be a bigger
| and bigger thing.
| sebastiennight wrote:
| People have been asking where the line is.
|
| - I think a video with a synthetic actor (even when it's cloning
| a human) is synthetic and should be labeled as such, whatever the
| provenance of the script
|
| - I think a video with a human actor, but an AI-written script
| could also be labeled. The line is blurrier there for me, since
| some folks have very elaborate prompts which basically amount to
| "here's my first draft, make it better". But having a straight-up
| rule is still good. False positives are better than false
| negatives here.
|
| - And then there's the issue of AI-generated translations (which
| is what we do at my startup[1] ). I do believe it's fair for
| viewers to have those tagged as well. And to be able to track
| provenance to avoid deepfakes.
|
| [1] https://www.onetake.ai
| dheera wrote:
| I think one thing I look forward to is editing my voice to
| sound different. The words and intonation can be kept, just
| make me sound like a different person. I hate listening to
| recordings of myself, and that's literally the only thing
| stopping me from becoming a Youtube creator. I don't know
| whether that would be classified as "AI".
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| The line is wherever content creators draw it:
|
| > YouTube will...require that creators disclose the use of AI
| in a video
| gosub100 wrote:
| I'm not sure if TTS is included in your first point, or if you
| meant a fake visual likeness. But I really want to see TTS
| labelled because it's so good now a lot of people don't know
| they are listening to a robot (and it's only going to get
| better). I know a lot of replies would say "well, what's the
| harm then?" and that's the insidious thing about A.I. is there
| isn't usually _direct harm_ , but I think people have a right
| to know they are living in a fake world and be free to opt in
| if they wish.
|
| On many of the fake channels, I see comments praising the fake
| actor for reading the stolen academic material (and ironically
| many of these comments are likely fake, too!).
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Is having a random guy on fiverr read a script without
| further context significantly less "fake" than TTS?
| MattRix wrote:
| Yes.
| Animats wrote:
| Will this be applied retroactively to most Hollywood output since
| Jurassic Park?
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| This is a bandage, not a cure.
|
| It won't work: Truth can only be healed with light.
| TheGRS wrote:
| I'm not on Youtube as much as the pandemic today, I feel like
| that was my peak watching of various content creators who pump
| out decent content regularly. But if I jump on Youtube today and
| half of my recommended feed becomes listed as AI, I'll likely
| stop going there altogether.
|
| If I start going on Youtube and watch a bunch of content and my
| spidey-sense goes off that a lot of these videos are AI-generated
| (without labels), I'll likely stop going there altogether as
| well.
|
| And this is not a direct bash on AI-generated content. I think
| the tech is going to be immensely helpful for all sorts of stuff,
| including youtube video content creation, but I'm dreading this
| early adoption period where people pump out low quality junk. I'd
| rather just avoid it and do something else. I'm sure Youtube is
| aware of this and is trying to figure out how to control the
| problem, but the labels just aren't going to help me continue to
| go to Youtube.
|
| Tough problem, I don't envy the folks at Youtube trying to figure
| this pickle out.
| j45 wrote:
| This will be good to identify and eliminate the easiest and
| laziest uses of AI to do the new form of content farms.
|
| What might remain hard?
|
| Hiring professional voiceover actors, and still doing actual
| video editing instead of rendering.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-14 23:00 UTC)