[HN Gopher] YouTube now requires to label their realistic-lookin...
___________________________________________________________________
YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made
using AI
Author : marban
Score : 810 points
Date : 2024-03-18 16:19 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| sigmoid10 wrote:
| >Some examples of content that require disclosure include: [...]
| Generating realistic scenes: Showing a realistic depiction of
| fictional major events, like a tornado moving toward a real town.
|
| This sounds like every thumbnail on youtube these days. It's good
| that this is not limited to AI, but it also means this will be a
| nightmare to police.
| nosvince wrote:
| Exactly, and many have done exactly the same kind of video
| using VFX. What's the difference? These kind of reactions
| remind me of the stories of the backlash following the
| introduction of calculators in schools...
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm sorry, but using a calculator to get around having to
| learn arithmetic is not even close being the same thing.
| Prove to me that you can do basic arithmetic, and then we can
| move on to using calculators for the more complex stuff where
| if you had to could at least come to the same value as the
| calculator.
|
| People using VFX aren't trying to create images in likeness
| of another existing person to get people to buy crypto or
| other scams. Comparing the two is disingenuous at best.
| GolDDranks wrote:
| > What's the difference?
|
| The ease and lack of skill required. That brings whole
| another set of implications.
| DylanDmitri wrote:
| Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved. VFX requires
| more expertise to do convincingly and realistically, in the
| thousands of hours of experience. More involved scenes
| require multiple professionals. The tooling and assets costs
| more. An inexperienced person, in a hundred hours of effort,
| can put out 10ish realistic scenes with leading edge AI
| tools, when previously they could do 0.
|
| This is like regulating handguns differently from compound
| bows. Both are lethal weapons, but the bow requires hours of
| training to use effectively, and is more difficult to carry
| discreetly. The combination of ease, convenience, and
| accessibility necessitates new regulation.
|
| This being said, AI for video is an incredibly promising
| technology, and I look forward to watching the TV shows and
| movies generated with AI-powered tooling.
| nomel wrote:
| > Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved.
|
| This really depends on what you're doing. There are some
| great Cinema 4d plugins out there. As the plethora of
| YouTube tutorials out there clearly demonstrate, multiple
| professionals, and vast experience, are _not_ required for
| some of the things they have listed. Tooling and assets
| costs are 0, in the high seas.
|
| Until Sora is widely available, or the open source models
| catch up, _at this moment_ it 's easier to use something
| like Cinema 4d than AI.
| mazlix wrote:
| What if i use an LLM powered AI to operate VFX software to
| generate a realistic looking scene? ;)
| alickz wrote:
| What if new AI tools negate the thousands of hours
| experience to generate realistic VFX scenes, so now
| realistic scenes can be made by both non-AI VFX experts and
| AI-assisted VFX laymen?
|
| Do we make all usages of VFX now require a warning, just in
| case the VFX was generated by AI?
|
| I think this is different to the bow v gun metaphor as I
| can tell an arrow from a bullet, but I can foresee a future
| where no human could tell the difference between AI-
| assisted and non-AI-assisted VFX / art
|
| I believe this is evidenced by the fact that people can go
| around accusing any art piece of being AI art and the
| burden of proving them wrong falls on the artist.
| Essentially I believe we are rapidly approaching the point
| of it not mattering if someone uses AI in their art because
| people won't be able to tell anyway
| hackernewds wrote:
| so if I used Blender it's banned? it's very tough to draw
| that line in the sand
| Xeyz0r wrote:
| This is very reminiscent of an act where someone calls the
| police about a 'looming' terrorist attack, for example
| dev1ycan wrote:
| You see thumbnails? I haven't seen a thumbnail in years, I use
| both DeArrow and Sponsorblock, youtube is very watchable.
| _trampeltier wrote:
| So beauty filters are ok, but what's the true difference between
| a strong beauty filter and a face change.
| vkou wrote:
| Society is simply revisiting a conversation about doctored
| photographs, videos, and audio recordings.
|
| The last word on this subject was not written in the 1920s,
| it's good to revisit old assumptions every century or so, when
| new forms of media and media manipulation become developed.
|
| The first pass on it is unlikely to be the best, or even the
| last one.
| diggan wrote:
| > The first pass on it is unlikely to be the best, or even
| the last one.
|
| And just like a prototype that would never end up in
| production, we'll remain with the first implementation we
| could think of _cough_ copyright _cough_
| callalex wrote:
| This is a very inaccurate depiction of copyright. It
| originally only lasted around 20 years with the option to
| double it. Then it was reformed over and over across
| history to create the monster we have today.
| vkou wrote:
| Copyright has been revised, overhauled and redefined
| multiple times over the past few centuries. You couldn't
| have picked a worse example.
|
| Here's an obvious question that came up (and was resolved
| differently in different jurisdictions) - can photographs
| be copyrighted? What about photographs made in public? Of a
| market street? Of the Eifel tower? Of street art? Can an
| artist forbid photography of their art? An actor of their
| performance? A celebrity of their likeness? A private
| individual of their face? Does the purpose for which the
| photograph will be used matter?
|
| At what point does a photograph have sufficient creative
| input to be copyrightable? Is pressing a button on a camera
| creative input? What about a machine that presses that
| button? Only humans can create copyrightable works under
| most jurisdictions. Is arranging the scene to be
| photographed a creative input? Can I arrange a scene just
| like yours and take a photo of it? Am I violating your
| copyright by doing it?
|
| There's tens of thousands of pages of law and legal
| precedent that answer that question. As a conversation, it
| went on for decades, with no simple first-version solution
| sticking.
| ravenstine wrote:
| > Society is simply revisiting a conversation about doctored
| photographs, videos, and audio recordings.
|
| society in this case = media companies
| vkou wrote:
| So go advocate. Go write books, op-eds. Go present at
| conferences. Universities. Go lobby. Rabble-rouse.
|
| You have to speak to get heard.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Doctoring an image of a willing model/actor is not the same
| thing as 100% made up attempting to look like a willing
| model/actor
| floatrock wrote:
| "made using AI" is such a fuzzy all-encompassing term that this
| feels like it will turn into another California Prop 65 warning
| scenario. Pretty soon every video will have a disclaimer like:
|
| WARNING: This video contains content known to the State of Google
| to be generated by AI algorithms and/or tools.
|
| Ok, beauty face filters are not included. How about character
| motion animations? How detailed does the after effects plugin
| need to be before it's considered AI? Can we generate just a
| background? Just a minor subject in the foreground? Or is it like
| pornography, where we'll recognize it once we see it?
|
| I fear AI tools will soon become so embedded in normal workflows
| that it's going to become a question of "how much" not
| "contains", and "how much" is such a blurry, subjective line that
| it's going to make any binary disclaimer meaningless.
| wwalexander wrote:
| You might be interested in Adobe's "Content Credentials" [1]
| which seemingly aim to clarify exactly what processing has
| applied to an image. I don't like the idea of Adobe being the
| gatekeepers of image-fidelity-verification but the idea is
| intriguing and it seems like we'll need something like this
| (that camera makers sign onto) to deal with AI.
|
| EDIT: I think these should also include whatever built-in
| processing is applied to the raw sensor data within the camera
| itself.
|
| [1] https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/content-
| credenti...
| fortran77 wrote:
| We need to fix the title. It's not just AI -- it's any realistic
| scene generated by VFX, animation, or AI. The title of the
| blogpost is "How we're helping creators disclose altered or
| synthetic content" -- it shouldn't say AI on the Hacker News
| title.
|
| > Generating realistic scenes: Showing a realistic depiction of
| fictional major events, like a tornado moving toward a real town.
|
| Does the Wizard of Oz tornado scene need a warning now? [0] (Of
| course not, but it may be hard to draw the line in some places.)
|
| [0] https://www.grunge.com/486387/heres-how-the-tornado-scene-
| in...
| wnc3141 wrote:
| yes but that's very hard and doesn't scale, (can't be cheaply
| shot from multiple angles etc.)
| pixelcloud wrote:
| They don't make a distinction between AI generated and VFX.
| This is contained within the linked article.
| jquery wrote:
| This is great. Really well-thought out policy, in my opinion.
| Sure, some people will try to get around the restrictions,
| especially nefarious actors, but the more popular the channel,
| the faster they'll get caught. It also doesn't try to distinguish
| between regular special effects and AI-generated special effects,
| which is wise.
| m463 wrote:
| I don't know, sometimes rules need ambiguity, like "high crimes
| and misdemeanors", but other times the little guys lose, like
| civil asset forfeiture.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Without enforceability it'll go the same way as it has on Pixiv,
| the good actors will properly label their AI utilizing work,
| while the bad actors will continue to lie to try to maximize
| their audience until they get caught, then rinse and repeat. Kind
| of like crypto-scammers.
|
| For context, Pixiv had to deal with a massive wave of AI content
| being dumped onto the site by wannabe artists basically right as
| the initial diffusion models became accessible. They responded by
| making 'AI-generated' a checkbox to go with the options to mark
| NSFW and adding an option for users to disable AI-generated
| content from being recommended to them. Then, after an incident
| of someone using their Patreon style service to pretend to be a
| popular artist, selling commissions generated by AI to copy the
| artist's style, they banned AI-generated content from being
| offered through that service.
| jtriangle wrote:
| Also remains to be seen if labeling your content as containing
| AI-generated work will help or hurt you in your viewership.
|
| My guess is that youtube is going to downrank this content, and
| may be trying to crowdsource training data in order to do this
| automatically.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| I think that for now they're just going to use it as a means
| of figuring out what kind of AI-involved content people are
| ok with and what kind they react negatively to.
|
| Personally, I've developed a strong aversion to content that
| is primarily done by AI with very little human effort on top.
| After how things went with Pixiv I've come to hold the belief
| that our societies don't help people develop 'cultural
| maturity'. People want the clout/respect of being a popular
| artist/creator, without having to go through the journey they
| all go through which leads to them becoming popular. It's
| like wanting to use the title of Doctor without putting in
| the effort to earn a doctorate, the difference just being
| that we do have a culture of thinking that it's bad to do
| that.
| dotancohen wrote:
| I think that the idea is mostly to dictate culture. And I like
| the idea, not only for preventing fraud. Ever since the first
| Starship launches, the reality looks more incredible than the
| fiction. Go look up the SN-8 landing video, tell me that does
| not look generated. I just want to know what is real and what
| is generated, by AI or not.
|
| I think that this policy is not perfect, but it is a step in
| the right direction.
| russdill wrote:
| I think one of the bigger issues will be false positives.
| You'll do an upload, and youtube will take it down claiming
| that some element was AI generated. You can appeal, but it'll
| get automatically rejected. So you have to rework your video
| and figure out what it thought might be AI generated and re-
| upload.
| strangescript wrote:
| This a pointless nearly unenforceable rule to make people feel
| better. Sure, if you generate something that seems like a real
| event that is provably false you can be caught, but anything
| mundane is not enforceable. Once models reach something like Sora
| 1.5 level of ability, we are kind of doomed on knowing whats real
| in video.
| gloosx wrote:
| naah, there still will be certain patterns and they will be
| recognisable.
|
| once something sora 1.5 level of ability is there - definitely
| reverse-sora model which can recognise ai-made videos should be
| possible to train as well
| supertrope wrote:
| >This a pointless nearly unenforceable rule to make people feel
| better.
|
| Pretty much. If Google says "Swiper no swiping" they can point
| at their policy when lobbying against regulations or pushing
| back against criticism.
|
| Before surveillance capitalism became the norm, web services
| told users to not share personal information, and to not trust
| other users they had not met in real life.
| nextworddev wrote:
| .
| carlossouza wrote:
| Exactly what I thought.
|
| Let's see how long it will take them to collect enough data and
| train a model to distinguish AI-generated from user-generated
| videos.
| the_duke wrote:
| They don't bother to mention it, but this is actually to comply
| with the the new EU AI act.
|
| > Providers will also have to ensure that AI-generated content is
| identifiable. Besides, AI-generated text published with the
| purpose to inform the public on matters of public interest must
| be labelled as artificially generated. This also applies to audio
| and video content constituting deep fakes
|
| https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory....
|
| Some discussion here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39746669
| machinekob wrote:
| Ofc. they don't mention it for big tech companies EU = Evil
| duringmath wrote:
| You'd think they're evil too if they let a bunch of middlemen
| and parasitic companies dictate how the software you invested
| untold sums and hours developing and marketing should work.
| damiankennedy wrote:
| Why should software be any different from aircraft?
| ajross wrote:
| Seems like this is sort of a manufactured argument. I mean,
| should every product everywhere have to cite every regulation
| it complies with? Your ibuprofen bottle doesn't bother to cite
| the FDA rules under which it was tested. Your car doesn't list
| the DOT as the reason it's got ABS brakes.
|
| The EU made a rule. YouTube complied. That changes the user
| experience. They documented it.
| contravariant wrote:
| Doesn't seem _that_ out of place for a blog post on the exact
| change they made to comply though.
|
| I mean you'd expect a pharmaceutical company to mention which
| rules they comply with at some point, even if not on the
| actual product (though in the case of medicine, probably also
| on the actual product).
| hnlmorg wrote:
| If the contents of my ibuprofen bottle changed due to
| regulatory changes, then it wouldn't be weird to have that
| cited at all.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| Certain goods sold in the EU are required to have CE marking
| to affirm that they satisfy EU regulations.
| nlehuen wrote:
| +1 in France at least, food products must not suggest that
| mandatory properties like "preservative free" is unique.
| When they advertise this on the package, they must disclose
| it's per regulation. Source:
| https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/denrees-
| alimentair...
| supriyo-biswas wrote:
| India is considering very similar laws as well (though not
| implemented at this time)[1], so it's not just the EU.
|
| Also, if every applicable regulation had to be mentioned, it'd
| be a very long list.
|
| [1]
| https://epaper.telegraphindia.com/imageview/464914/53928423/...
| hoffs wrote:
| Considering is different from actually something that should
| be enforced
| ysofunny wrote:
| I have a more entertaining: "typical google, getting somebody
| else to give them training data in exchnage for free hosting of
| some sort"
| orbital-decay wrote:
| Labeling AI-generated content (assuming it works) is beneficial
| for Google, as they can avoid some dataset contamination.
| airspresso wrote:
| Excellent point. With more and more AI-generated content it
| will be key to be able to tell it apart from the human-
| generated content.
| alphazard wrote:
| Is anyone else worried about how naive this policy is?
|
| The solution here is for important institutions to get onboard
| with the public key infrastructure, and start signing anything
| they want to certify as authentic.
|
| The culture needs to shift from assuming video and pictures are
| real, to assuming they are made the easiest way possible. A
| signature means the signer wants you to know the content is
| theirs, nothing else.
|
| It doesn't help to train people to live in a pretend world
| where fake content always has a warning sticker.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| One of Neal Stephenson's more recent novels deals with this
| concept. Fake news becomes so bad that everyone starts
| singing everything they create.
| pixl97 wrote:
| This is about as realistic as the next generation of
| congress people ending up 40 years younger.
|
| We literally have politicians talking about pouring acid on
| hardware and expect these same bumbleheads to keep their
| signing keys safe at the same time. The average person is
| far too technologically illiterate to do that. Next time
| you go to grandmas house you'll learn she traded her
| signing key for chocolate chip cookies.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| I imagine it would be something handled pretty
| automatically for everyone.
|
| If Apple wanted to sign every photo and document the
| iPhone they could probably make the whole user experience
| simple enough for most grandmas.
|
| Some people will certainly give away their keys, just
| like bank accounts and social security numbers today, but
| those people probably aren't terribly concerned with
| proving the ownership of their online documents.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >I imagine it would be something handled pretty
| automatically for everyone.
|
| Then your imagination fails you.
|
| If it is automatic/easy, then you have the 'easy key'
| problem, such as the key is easy to steal or copy. For
| example is it based on your apple account? Then what
| occurs with an account is stolen? Is it based on a
| device, what happens when the device is stolen?
|
| Who's doing the PKI? Is it going to be like https, but
| for individuals (this has never really worked at this
| scale and with revocation). Like most social media is
| posting content taken by randos on the internet.
| RandallBrown wrote:
| When your account is stolen someone can create "official"
| documents in your name and impersonate you. There could
| be a system for invalidating your key after a certain
| date to help out with those situations.
|
| For prominent people who actually have to worry about
| being impersonated they could provide their own keys.
|
| The infrastructure could be managed by multiple groups or
| a singular one like the government. The point isn't to be
| a perfect system, it's to generate enough trust that what
| you're looking at is genuine and not a total fraud.
|
| In a world where AI bots are generating fake information
| about everyone in the world, that kind of system could
| certainly be built and be useful.
| thwarted wrote:
| I see a lot of confusing authenticity with accuracy. Someone
| can sign the statement "Obama is white" but that doesn't make
| it a true statement. The use of PKI as part of showing
| provenance/chain of trust doesn't make any claims about the
| accuracy of what is signed. All it does is assert that a
| given identity signed something.
| airspresso wrote:
| It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed
| it and whether you trust that source. I want credible news
| outlets to start signing their content with a key I can
| verify as theirs. In that future all unsigned content is by
| definition fishy. PKI is the only way to implement trust in
| a digital realm.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| > The culture needs to shift from assuming video and pictures
| are real, to assuming they are made the easiest way possible.
|
| That sounds like a dystopia, but I guess we're going into
| that direction. I expect that a lot of fringe groups like
| flat-earthers, lizard people conspiracy, war in Ukraine is
| fake, will become way more mainstream.
| pjc50 wrote:
| PKI has been around for, what, 30 years? Image authentication
| is just not going to happen at this point, because everyone's
| got too used to post-processing and it's a massive hassle for
| something that ultimately doesn't matter because real people
| use other processes to determine whether things are true or
| not.
| gretch wrote:
| Example: a video shows a group of police beating up a man for
| a minor crime (say littering). The video is signed by Michael
| Smith (the random passerby who filmed it on his phone). The
| video is published to Instagram and shared widely.
|
| How do you expect people to take the authenticity of this
| video?
| pctf wrote:
| The signing happens using hardware inside the phone or
| camera. It implies that it came from a real device and thus
| was not AI created or modified. Check out https://c2pa.org/
| specifications/specifications/1.4/attestati... for more
| details
| Karellen wrote:
| What if a real person reads a script that was created with an
| LLM? Does that count? Should it?
| airspresso wrote:
| Blog post specifically mentions that using AI to help writing
| the script does not require labeling the video.
| Karellen wrote:
| Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear that I was specifically
| responding to the GP comment referencing the EU AI act (as
| opposed to creating a new top-level comment responding to
| the original blog post and Google's specific policy) which
| pointed out:
|
| > Besides, AI-generated text published with the purpose to
| inform the public on matters of public interest must be
| labelled as artificially generated. This also applies to
| audio and video content constituting deep fakes
|
| Clearly "AI-generated text" doesn't apply to YouTube
| videos.
|
| But, it is interesting that if you use an LLM to generate
| text and present that text to users, you need to inform
| them it was AI-generated (per the act). But if a real
| person reads it out, apparently you don't (per the policy)?
|
| This seems like a weird distinction to me. Should the
| audience be informed if a series of words were LLM-
| generated or not? If so, why does it matter if they're
| delivered as text, or if they're read out?
| pier25 wrote:
| Thank you EU!
| cmilton wrote:
| I would take this a step further and make it required that
| companies create an easy way for users to opt-out of this type
| of content.
| hnbad wrote:
| Usually when a big corporation gleefully announces a change
| like this it's worth checking whether there's any regulations
| on that topic taking effect in the near future.
|
| On a local level, I recall how various brands started making a
| big deal of replacing disposable plastic bags with canvas or
| paper alternatives "for the environment" just coincidentally a
| few months before disposable plastic bags were banned in the
| entire country.
| Xeyz0r wrote:
| I think many countries have started considering the legal
| regulation of using AI in any content
| summerlight wrote:
| Looks like there is a huge grea area that they need to figure out
| in practice. From
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491#:
|
| Examples of content creators don't have to disclose:
| * Someone riding a unicorn through a fantastical world *
| Green screen used to depict someone floating in space *
| Color adjustment or lighting filters * Special effects
| filters, like adding background blur or vintage effects *
| Production assistance, like using generative AI tools to create
| or improve a video outline, script, thumbnail, title, or
| infographic * Caption creation * Video sharpening,
| upscaling or repair and voice or audio repair * Idea
| generation
|
| Examples of content creators need to disclose: *
| Synthetically generating music (including music generated using
| Creator Music) * Voice cloning someone else's voice to use
| it for voiceover * Synthetically generating extra footage
| of a real place, like a video of a surfer in Maui for a
| promotional travel video * Synthetically generating a
| realistic video of a match between two real professional tennis
| players * Making it appear as if someone gave advice that
| they did not actually give * Digitally altering audio to
| make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live
| performance * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or
| other weather events moving toward a real city that didn't
| actually happen * Making it appear as if hospital workers
| turned away sick or wounded patients * Depicting a public
| figure stealing something they did not steal, or admitting to
| stealing something when they did not make that admission *
| Making it look like a real person has been arrested or imprisoned
| Aardwolf wrote:
| > Synthetically generating music (including music generated
| using Creator Music)
|
| What about music made with a synthesizer?
| Jensson wrote:
| If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is
| fine.
|
| But since AI can't legally have copyright to their music
| Google probably wants to know for that reason.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| I hope there is some kind of middle ground, legally, here?
| Like say you use a piano that uses AI to generate
| artificial piano sounds, but you create and play the melody
| yourself: can you get copyright or not?
| jprete wrote:
| IANAL. I think you'd get copyright on the melody and the
| recording, but not the sound font that the AI created.
| Gormo wrote:
| It goes without saying that a piece of software can't be a
| copyright holder.
|
| But the person who uses that software certainly can own the
| copyright to the resulting work.
| Jensson wrote:
| If someone else uses the same AI generator software and
| makes the same piece of music should Google go after them
| for it? I don't think that would hold in court.
|
| Hopefully this means that AI generated music gets skipped
| by Googles DRM checks.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is
| fine.
|
| Amount of work is not a basis for copyright. (Kind of work
| is, though the basis for the "kind" distinction used isn't
| actually a real objective category, so its ultimately
| almost entirely arbitary.)
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That could get tricky. A lot of hardware and software
| MIDI sequencers these days have probabilistic triggering
| built in, to introduce variation in drum loops,
| basslines, and so forth. An argument could be made that
| even if you programmed the sequence and all the sounds
| yourself, having any randomization or algorithmic
| elements would make the resulting work ineligible for
| copyright.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Even if it is fully AI-generated, this requirement seems off
| compared to the other ones.
|
| In all of the other cases, it can be deceiving, but what is
| deceiving in synthetic music? There may be some cases where
| it is relevant, like when imitating the voice of a famous
| singer, but other than that, music is not "real", it is work
| coming from the imagination of its creator. That kind of
| thing is already dealt with with copyright, and attribution
| is a common requirement, and one that YouTube already
| enforces (how it does that is different matter).
| slowfox wrote:
| From a Google/Alphabet perspective it could also be
| valuable to distinguish between ,,original" and ,,ai
| generated" music for the purpose of a cleaner database to
| train their own music generation models?
| kmeisthax wrote:
| Alternatively they want to know who to ban when the RIAA
| inevitably starts suing the shit out of music generators.
| zuminator wrote:
| In one of the examples, they refer to something called "Dream
| Track"
|
| > _Dream Track in Shorts is an experimental song creation
| tool that allows creators to create a unique 30-second
| soundtrack with the voices of opted-in artists. It brings
| together the expertise of Google DeepMind and YouTube's most
| innovative researchers with the expertise of our music
| industry partners, to open up new ways for creators on Shorts
| to create and engage with artists._
|
| > _Once a soundtrack is published, anyone can use the AI-
| generated soundtrack as-is to remix it into their own Shorts.
| These AI-generated soundtracks will have a text label
| indicating that they were created with Dream Track. We're
| starting with a limited set of creators in the United States
| and opted-in artists. Based on the feedback from these
| experiments, we hope to expand this._
|
| So my impression is they're talking about labeling music
| which is derived from a real source (like a singer or a band)
| and might conceivably be mistaken for coming from that
| source.
| dheera wrote:
| > * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather
| events moving toward a real city that didn't actually happen
|
| > * Making it appear as if hospital workers turned away sick or
| wounded patients
|
| > * Depicting a public figure stealing something they did not
| steal, or admitting to stealing something when they did not
| make that admission
|
| Considering they own the platform, why not just ban this type
| of content? It was possible to create this content before "AI".
| dotnet00 wrote:
| There are many cases where such content is perfectly fine.
| After all, YouTube doesn't claim to be a place devoted to
| non-fiction only. The first one is an especially common thing
| in fiction.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Does that mean movies clips will need to be labeled?
| lesostep wrote:
| Or video game footage? I explicitly remember people
| confusing Arma footage with real war footage.
| samatman wrote:
| The third one could easily be satire. Imagine that a
| politician is accused of stealing from the public purse, and
| issues a meme-worthy press statement denying it, and someone
| generates AI content of that politician claiming not to have
| stolen a car or something using a similar script.
|
| Valid satire, fair use of the original content: parody is
| considered transformative. But it should be labeled as AI
| generated, or it's going to escape onto social media and
| cause havoc.
|
| It might anyway, obviously. But that isn't a good reason to
| ban free expression here imho.
| perihelions wrote:
| Respectfully disagree. Satire should not be labelled as
| satire. Onus is on the reader to be awake and thinking
| critically--not for the entire planet to be made into a
| safe space for the unthinking.
|
| It was never historically the case that satire was expected
| to be labelled, or instantly recognized by anyone who
| stumbled across it. Satire is _rude_. It 's _meant_ to mock
| people--it is _intended_ to muddle and provoke confused
| reactions. That 's free expression nonetheless!
| dinkleberg wrote:
| So when we have perfect deep fakes that are
| indistinguishable from real videos and people are using
| it for satire, people shouldn't be required to inform
| people of that?
|
| How is one to figure out what is real and what is a
| satire? Times and technologies change. What was once
| reasonable won't always be.
| perihelions wrote:
| - _" How is one to figure out what is real and what is a
| satire?"_
|
| Context, source, tone of speech, and reasonability.
|
| - _" Times and technologies change."_
|
| And so do people! We adapt to times and technology; we
| don't need to be insulated from them. The only response
| needed to a new type of artificial medium, is, that
| people learn to be marginally more skeptical about that
| medium.
| SamBam wrote:
| Nah. Satire was always safe when it's not pretending to
| have documented evidence of the thing actually happening.
|
| Two recent headlines:
|
| * Biden Urges Americans Not To Let Dangerous Online
| Rhetoric Humanize Palestinians [1]
|
| * Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato
| allies who pay too little [2]
|
| Do you really think, if you jumped back a few years, you
| could have known which was satire and which wasn't?
|
| The fact that we have video evidence of the second is
| (part) of how we know it's true. Sure, we could also
| trust the reporters who were there, but that doesn't lend
| itself to immediate verification by someone who sees the
| headline on their Facebook feed.
|
| If the first had an accompanying AI video, do you think
| it would be believed by some people who are willing to
| believe the worst of Biden? Sure, especially in a
| timeline where the second headline is true.
|
| 1. https://www.theonion.com/biden-urges-americans-not-to-
| let-da...
|
| 2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-
| news/2024/feb/11/donald-trump...
| kmeisthax wrote:
| For what it's worth, this is already a genre of YouTube
| video, and I happen to find it absolutely hilarious:
|
| https://youtu.be/3oWFFAVYMec
|
| https://youtu.be/aL1f6w-ziOM
| nashashmi wrote:
| Those voice overs on tiktok that are computer generated but
| sound quite real and often are reading some script. Do they
| have to disclose that those voices are artificially produced?
| kazinator wrote:
| > _Synthetically generating music_
|
| Yagoddabekidding. That could cover any piece of music created
| with MIDI sequencing and synthesizers and such.
| kevindamm wrote:
| I think there's a clear difference between synthesizing music
| and synthetically generating music. One term has been around
| for decades and the other one is being confused with that.
| kazinator wrote:
| To someone who is doing one or the there is a clear
| difference. I don't trust the EU or YouTube to be able to
| tell the difference from the other end, by the end product
| alone.
|
| If AI writes MIDI input for a synthesizer, rather than
| producing the actual waveform, where does that land?
| Lerc wrote:
| > * Voice cloning someone else's voice to use it for voiceover
|
| This is interesting because I was considering cloning my own
| voice as a way to record things without the inevitable
| hesitations, ums, errs, and stumbling over my words. By this
| standard I am allowed to do so.
|
| But then I thought what does it even mean "someone else's" when
| multiple people can make a video, if my wife and I make a video
| together can we not then use my recorded voice because to her
| my voice is someone else.
|
| I suspect all of these rules will have similar edge cases and a
| wide penumbra where arbitrary rulings will be autocratically
| applied.
| exodust wrote:
| > ...to her my voice is someone else.
|
| To her, your voice is your voice not someone else's voice.
|
| If you share a Youtube account with your wife, "someone else"
| means someone other than you or your wife.
|
| The more interesting and troubling point is your use of
| "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better!
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| > The more interesting and troubling point is your use of
| "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better!
|
| Why?
| alt227 wrote:
| Is this really any different to say using makeup, cosmetic
| plastic surgery, or even choosing to wear specific clothes?
| exodust wrote:
| A lot different? The equivalent would be applying makeup
| to your mannequin replacement. All the things you mention
| are decoration. Replacing your voice is more than a
| surface alteration. I guess if some clever AI decides to
| take issue with what I say, and uses some enforcement
| tactic to arm-twist my opinion, I could change my mind.
| 946789987649 wrote:
| We already have people editing videos anyway, you never
| see the first cut. AI-matically removing umms is really
| just speeding up that process.
| fwip wrote:
| I think the suggestion being discussed was AI-cloning
| your voice, and then using that for text-to-speech. Audio
| generation, rather than automating the cuts and tweaks to
| the recorded audio.
| xarope wrote:
| * Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular
| singer missed a note in their live performance
|
| Does all the autotuning that singers use in live performance
| counts?
|
| /j
| nuz wrote:
| Interestingly they only say you have to disclose it if it's a
| singer _missing_ a note. Seems like it 's fair game to fix a
| note that was off key in real life and not disclose that.
| dormento wrote:
| IMHO, not even a /j.
|
| Under the current guidelines, doesn't all music performances
| that make use of some sort of pitch correction assist are
| technically "digitally altered"?
| BlueGh0st wrote:
| >Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather
| events moving toward a real city that didn't actually happen
|
| A bit funny considering a realistic warning and "live" radar
| map of an impending, major, natural disaster occurring in your
| city apparently doesn't violate their ad policy on YouTube.
| Probably the only time an ad gave me a genuine fright.
| chasd00 wrote:
| There's a whole genre of videos on YouTube simulating the
| PSAs of large scale disasters. Nuclear war, meteors, etc. My
| 12 year old is really into them.
| greggsy wrote:
| To me, the guidelines are fairly clear: if it's assisting
| production of a work of fiction, it's ok.
| jjcm wrote:
| I think it's smart to start trying things here. This has infinite
| flaws with it, but from a business and learnings standpoint it's
| a step toward the right direction. Over time we're going to both
| learn and decide what is and isn't important to designate as "AI"
| - Google's approach here at least breaks this into rules of what
| "AI" things are important to label:
|
| * Makes a real person appear to say or do something they didn't
| say or do
|
| * Alters footage of a real event or place
|
| * Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur
|
| At the very least this will test each of these hypotheses, which
| we'll learn from and iterate on. I am curious to see the legal
| arguments that will inevitably kick up from each of these - is
| color correction altering footage of a real event or place? They
| explicitly say it isn't in the wider description, but what about
| beauty filters? If I have 16 video angles, and use photogrammetry
| / gaussian splatting / AI to generate a 17th, is that a
| realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur? Do I need to
| have actually captured the photons themselves if I can be 99%
| sure my predictions of them are accurate?
|
| So many flaws, but all early steps have flaws. At least it is a
| step.
| jjcm wrote:
| One black hat thing I'm curious about though is whether or not
| this tag can be weaponized. If I upload a real event and tag it
| as AI, will it reduce user trust that the real event ever
| happened?
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The AI tags are fundamentally useless. The premise is that it
| would prevent someone from misleading you by thinking that
| something happened when it didn't, but someone who wants to
| do that would just not tag it then.
|
| Which is where the real abuse comes in: _You_ post footage of
| a real event and _they_ say it was AI, and ban you for it
| etc., because what actually happened is politically
| inconvenient.
|
| And the only way to prevent that would be a reliable way to
| detect AI-generated content which, if it existed, would
| obviate any need to tag anything because then it could be
| automated.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Not convinced by this. Camera sensors have measurable
| individual noise, if you record RAW that won't be fakeable
| without prior access to the device. You'd have a
| straightforward case for defamation if your real footage
| were falsely labeled, and it would be easy to demonstrate
| in court.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Camera sensors have measurable individual noise, if you
| record RAW that won't be fakeable without prior access to
| the device.
|
| Which doesn't help you unless non-AI images are all
| required to be RAW. Moreover, someone who is trying to
| fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a
| real camera to emulate.
|
| > You'd have a straightforward case for defamation if
| your real footage were falsely labeled, and it would be
| easy to demonstrate in court.
|
| Defamation typically requires you to prove that the
| person making the claim knew it was false. They'll, of
| course, claim that they thought it was actually fake.
| Also, most people don't have the resources to sue YouTube
| for their screw ups.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something
| could obviously obtain access to a real camera to
| emulate._
|
| Yes, but not to _your_ camera. Sorry for not phrasing it
| more clearly: individual cameras have measurable noise
| signatures distinct from otherwise identical models.
|
| On the lawsuit side, you just need to aver that you are
| the author of the original footage and are willing to
| prove it. As long as you are in possession of both the
| device and the footage, you have two pieces of solid
| evidence vs. someone elses feels/half-assed AI detection
| algorithm. There will be no shortage of tech-savvy media
| lawyers willing to take this case on contingency.
| Gregaros wrote:
| DMCA abuse begs to differ.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| That's because of safe harbor provisions, which don't
| exist in this context.
| VelesDude wrote:
| Unfortunately video codecs love to crush that fine
| detail.
| nomel wrote:
| Most consumer cameras require access menus to enable raw
| because dealing with RAW is a truly terrible user
| experience. The vast majority of image/video sensors out
| there don't even support raw recordings, out of the box.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Anyone with a mid-to-upper range phone or better-than-
| entry level DSLR/bridge camera has access to this, and
| anyone who uses that camera to make a living (eg shooting
| footage of protests) understands how to use RAW. I have
| friends who are complete technophobes but have figured
| this out because they want to be able to sell their
| footage from time to time.
| fennecbutt wrote:
| "Dealing with raw" is one of the major reasons to use an
| actual camera these days.
| MBCook wrote:
| That's what I was thinking. Why don't we just ask all scam
| videos to label themselves as scams while we're at it?
|
| It's nice honest users will do that but they're not really
| the problem are they.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > Why don't we just ask all scam videos to label
| themselves as scams while we're at it?
|
| We do, we ask paid endorsements to be disclaimed.
| mazlix wrote:
| I think you have a bit backwards. If you want to publish
| pixels on a screen there should be no assumption that they
| represent real events.
|
| If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have
| some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic
| signature from a device sensor that would necessitate
| atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being
| "in on it" to fake.
|
| Also since no one likes RAW footage it should probably just
| be you post your edited version which may have "AI"
| upscaling / de-noising / motion blur fixing etc, AND you
| can post a link to your cryptographically signed verifiable
| RAW footage.
|
| Of course there's still ways around that like your footage
| could just be a camera being pointed at an 8k screen or
| something but at least you make some serious hurdles and
| have a reasonable argument to the video being a result of
| photons bouncing off real objects hitting your camera
| sensor.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > If you want to publish proof of an event, you should
| have some pixels on a screen along with some
| cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would
| necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony /
| etc. being "in on it" to fake.
|
| At which point nobody could verify anything that happened
| with any existing camera, including all past events as of
| today and all future events captured with any existing
| camera.
|
| Then someone will publish a way to extract the key from
| some new camera model, both allowing anyone to forge
| anything by extracting a key and using it to sign
| whatever they want, and calling into question everything
| actually taken with that camera model/manufacturer.
|
| Meanwhile cheap cameras will continue to be made that
| don't even support RAW, and people will capture real
| events with them because they were in hand when the
| events unexpectedly happened. Which is the most important
| use case because footage taken by a staff photographer at
| a large media company with a professional camera can
| already be authenticated by a big corporation,
| specifically the large media company.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I think at minimum YouTube could tag existing footage
| uploaded before 2015 as very unlikely to be AI generated.
| bandrami wrote:
| The first (acknowledged) deepfake video is from 1997
| BeFlatXIII wrote:
| Hence, "unlikely" instead of "guaranteed real."
| miki123211 wrote:
| also the three letter agencies (not just from the US)
| will have access to private keys of at least some
| manufacturers, allowing them to authenticate fake events
| and sow chaos by strategically leaking keys for cameras
| that recorded something they really don't like.
| eek2121 wrote:
| For all the folks that bash the United States for
| "reasons" this one gave me a chuckle. Our handling of
| privacy and data and such is absolute ass, but at least
| we *can* hide our data from big government with little
| repercussion in most cases (translation: you aren't
| actively being investigated for a crime that a judge
| isn't aware of)
|
| Of course that says nothing about the issues of
| corruption of judges in the court system, but that is a
| "relatively" new issues that DOES absolutely need to be
| addressed.
|
| (Shoot one could argue that the way certain folks are
| behaving right now is in itself unconstitutional and
| those folks should be booted)
|
| Countries all over the world (EVEN IN EUROPE WITH THE
| GDPR) are a lot less "gracious" with anonymous
| communication. The UK actually has been trying to outlaw
| private encryption, for a while now, as an example, but
| there are worse examples from certain other countries.
| You can find them by examining their political system,
| most (all? I did quit a bit of research, but also was not
| interested in spending a ton of time on this topic) are
| "conservative leaning"
|
| Note that I'm not talking just about existing policy, but
| countries that are continually trying to enact new
| policy.
|
| Just like the US has "guarantees" on free speech, the
| right to vote, etc. The world needs guaranteed access to
| freedom of speech, religion, right to vote, healthcare,
| food, water, shelter, electricity, and medical care. I
| don't know of a single country in the world, including
| the US, that does anywhere close to a good of job with
| that.
|
| I'm actually hoping that Ukraine is given both the motive
| and opportunity to push the boundaries in that regard. If
| you've been following some of the policy stuff, it is a
| step in the right direction. I 100% know they won't even
| come close to getting the job done, but they are
| definitely moving in the right direction. I definitely do
| not support this war, but with all of the death and
| destruction, at least there is a tiny little pinprick of
| light...
|
| ...Even if a single country in the world got everything
| right, we still need to find a way to unite everyone.
|
| Our time in this universe is limited and our time on
| earth more-so. We should have been working together 60
| years ago for a viable off-planet colony and related
| stuff. If the world ended tomorrow, humanity would cease
| to exist. You need over 100,000 people to sustain the
| human race in the event a catastrophic event wipes almost
| everyone out. Even if we had 1,000 people in space, our
| species would be doomed.
|
| I am really super surprised that basic survival needs are
| NOT on the table when we are all arguing about religion,
| abortion, guns, etc. Like really?
| tsimionescu wrote:
| > We should have been working together 60 years ago for a
| viable off-planet colony and related stuff. If the world
| ended tomorrow, humanity would cease to exist. You need
| over 100,000 people to sustain the human race in the
| event a catastrophic event wipes almost everyone out.
|
| We are hundreds of years away from the kind of technology
| you would need for a viable fully self-sustainable off-
| world colony that houses 100k or more humans. We couldn't
| even build something close to one in Antarctica.
|
| This kind of colony would need to span half of Mars to
| actually have access to all the resources it needs to
| build all of the high-tech gear they would require to
| just not die of asphixiation. And they would need top-
| tier universities to actually have people capable of
| designing and building those high-tech systems, and media
| companies, and gigantic farms to make not just food but
| bioplastics and on and on.
|
| Starting 60 years earlier on a project that would take a
| millennium is ultimately irrelevant.
|
| Not to mention, nothing we could possibly do on Earth
| would make it even a tenth as hard to live here than on
| Mars. Nuclear wars, the worse bio-engineered weapons,
| super volcanoes - it's much, much easier to create tech
| that would allow us to survive and thrive after all of
| these than it is to create tech for humans to survive on
| a frozen irradiated dusty planet with next to no
| atmosphere. And Mars is still the most hospitable other
| celestial body in the solar system.
| shafyy wrote:
| > _I am really super surprised that basic survival needs
| are NOT on the table when we are all arguing about
| religion, abortion, guns, etc. Like really?_
|
| Most people in the world struggle to feed themselves and
| their families. This is the basic survival need. Do you
| think they fucking care what happens to humantiy in 100k
| years? Stop drinking that transhumanism kool-aid, give
| your windows a good cleaning and look at what's happening
| in the real world, every day.
| LtWorf wrote:
| > but at least we _can_ hide our data from big government
| with little repercussion
|
| They come and ask. You say no? They find cocaine in your
| home.
|
| You aren't in jail because you refused to hand out data.
| You are in jail because you were dealing drugs.
| miki123211 wrote:
| > that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like
| Nikon / Sony etc. being "in on it" to fake
|
| Or an APT (AKA advanced persistent teenager) with their
| parents camera and more time than they know what to do
| with.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| I worked in device attestation at Android. It's not
| robust enough to put our understanding of reality in.
| Fine for preventing API abuse but that's it.
| dataflow wrote:
| > I worked in device attestation at Android. It's not
| robust enough to put our understanding of reality in.
|
| I don't follow. Isn't software backward compatibility a
| big reason why Android device attestation is so hard? For
| cameras, why can't the camera sensor output a digital
| signature of the sensor data along with the actual sensor
| data?
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| There's been a slow march to requiring hardware-backed
| security. I believe all new devices from the last couple
| of years need a TEE or a dedicated security chip.
|
| At least with Android there are too many OEMs and they
| screw up too often. Bad actors will specifically seek out
| these devices, even if they're not very technically
| skilled. The skilled bad actors will 0-day the devices
| with the weakest security. For political reasons, even if
| a batch of a million devices are compromised it's hard to
| quickly ban them because that means those phones can no
| longer watch Netflix etc.
| dataflow wrote:
| But you don't have to ban them for this use case? You
| just need something opportunistic, not ironclad. An
| entity like Google could publish those devices'
| certificates as "we can't verify the integrity of these
| devices' cameras", and let the public deal with that
| information (or not) as they wish. Customers who care
| about proving integrity (e.g., the media) will seek the
| verifiable devices. Those who don't, won't. I can't tell
| if I'm missing something here, but this seems much more
| straightforward than the software attestation problem
| Android has been dealing with so far.
| johnny22 wrote:
| Woudln't that prevent most folks from being able to root
| their devices without making the camera lesser than
| everyone else's camera?
| dataflow wrote:
| What does this have to do with root? The camera chip
| would be the one signing the data flowing through it, not
| the Android kernel.
| 8note wrote:
| If you do a jpeg compression, or crop the file, then does
| that signature matter anymore?
| dataflow wrote:
| Not if _you_ do it, only if the _chip_ also gives you a
| signed JPEG. Cropping and other simple transformations
| aren 't an issue, though, since you could just specify
| them in unsigned metadata, and people would be able to
| inspect what they're doing. Either way, just having a
| signed image from the sensor ought to be adequate for any
| case where the authenticity is more important than
| anesthetics. You share both the processed version and the
| original, as proof that there's no misleading alteration.
| chii wrote:
| > You share both the processed version and the original,
| as proof that there's no misleading alteration
|
| so you cannot share the original if you intend to black
| out something from the original that you don't want
| revealed (e.g., a face or name or something).
|
| The way you specced out how a signed jpeg works means the
| raw data _must_ remain visible. There's gonna be
| unintended consequences from such a system.
|
| And it aint even that trustworthy - the signing key could
| potentially be stolen or coerced out, and fakes made.
| It's not a rock-solid proof - my benchmark for proof
| needs to be on par with blockchains'.
| dataflow wrote:
| > The way you specced out how a signed jpeg works means
| the raw data _must_ remain visible. There's gonna be
| unintended consequences from such a system.
|
| You can obviously extend this if you want to add bells
| and whistles like cropping or whatever. Like signing
| every NxN sub-block separately, or more fancy stuff if
| you really care. It should be obvious I'm not going to
| design in every feature you could possibly dream of in an
| HN comment...
|
| And regardless, like I said: this whole thing is intended
| to be opportunistic. You use it when you can. When you
| can't, well, you explain why, or you don't. Ultimately
| it's always up to the beholder to decide whether to
| believe you, with or without proof.
|
| > And it aint even that trustworthy - the signing key
| could potentially be stolen or coerced out, and fakes
| made.
|
| I already addressed this: once you determine a particular
| camera model's signature ain't trustworthy, you publish
| it for the rest of the world to know.
|
| > It's not a rock-solid proof - my benchmark for proof
| needs to be on par with blockchains'.
|
| It's rock-solid enough for enough people. I can't
| guarantee I'll personally satisfy you, but you're going
| to be sorely disappointed when you realize what
| benchmarks courts currently use for assessing evidence
| tampering...
| dataflow wrote:
| It also occurs to me that the camera chips -- or even
| separately-sold chips -- could be augmented to perform
| transformations (like black-out) on already-signed
| images. You could even make this work with arbitrary
| transformations - just sign the new image along with a
| description (e.g., bytecode) of the sequence of
| transformations applied to it so far. This would let you
| post-process authentic images while maintaining
| authenticity.
|
| The possibilities are pretty endless here.
| A1kmm wrote:
| Cryptography also has answers for some of this sort of
| thing. For example, you could use STARKs (Succinct
| Transparent Arguments of Knowledge) to create a proof
| that there exists a raw image I, and a signature S_I of I
| corresponding to the public key K (public input), and
| that H_O (public input) is a hash of an image O, and that
| O is the output of providing a specified transformation
| (cropping, JPEG compression) to I.
|
| Then you give me O, I already know K (you tell me which
| manufacturer key to use, and I decide if I trust it), and
| the STARK proof. I validate the proof (including the
| public inputs K and H_O, which I recalculate from O
| myself), and if it validates I know that you have access
| to a signed image I that O is derived from in a well-
| defined way. You never have to disclose I to me. And with
| the advent of zkVMs, it isn't even necessarily that hard
| to do as long as you can tolerate the overhead of running
| the compression / cropping algorithm on a zkVM instead of
| real hardware, and don't mind the proof size (which is
| probably in the tens of megabytes at least).
| johnny22 wrote:
| ah. I thought it'd be more in the vein of safetynet, but
| guess not.
| qbit42 wrote:
| I am not sure how verifying that a photo was unaltered
| after capture from a camera if very useful though. You
| could just take a photo of a high-resolution display when
| an edited photo on it
| dataflow wrote:
| That wouldn't look nearly realistic. And it would be
| significantly harder to achieve for most people anyway.
| michaelt wrote:
| It's true that 1990s pirated videos where someone snuck a
| handheld camera into the cinema were often very low
| quality.
|
| But did you know large portions of The Mandalorian were
| produced with the actors acting in front of an enormous,
| high-resolution LED screen [1] instead of building a set,
| or using greenscreen?
|
| It turns out pointing a camera at a screen can actually
| be pretty realistic, if you know what you're doing.
|
| And I suspect the pr agencies interested in flooding the
| internet with images of Politician A kicking a puppy and
| Politician B rescuing flood victims do, in fact, know
| what they're doing.
|
| [1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/20/how-the-
| mandalorian-and-il...
| dataflow wrote:
| That's a freaking massive LED _wall_... with professional
| cinematography on top. If you believed my comment was
| intended to imply that I believed that 's somehow
| impossible, well... you and I have a very different
| understanding of what it means to "just take a picture of
| a high-resolution display"...
| wpietri wrote:
| I think doing this right goes the other direction. What
| we're going to end up with is a focus on provenance.
|
| We already understand that with text. We know that to
| verify words, we have to trace it back to the source, and
| then we evaluate the credibility of the source.
|
| There have been periods where recording technology ran
| ahead of faking technology, so we tended to just trust
| photos, audio, and video (even though they could always
| be used to paint misleading pictures). But that era is
| over. New technological tricks may push back the tide a
| little here and there, but mostly we're going to end up
| relying on, "Who says this is real, and why should we
| believe them?"
| mr_toad wrote:
| So you could never edit the video?
| tivert wrote:
| > If you want to publish proof of an event, you should
| have some pixels on a screen along with some
| cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would
| necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony /
| etc. being "in on it" to fake.
|
| That idea doesn't work, at all.
|
| Even assuming a perfect technical implementation, all
| you'd have to do to defeat it is launder your fake image
| through a camera's image sensor. And there's even a term
| for doing that: telecine.
|
| With the right jig, a HiDPI display, and typical photo
| editing ( _no one_ shows you raw, full-res images), I don
| 't think such a _signature_ forgery would detectable by a
| layman or maybe even an expert.
| kube-system wrote:
| > The premise is that it would prevent someone from
| misleading you by thinking that something happened when it
| didn't, but someone who wants to do that would just not tag
| it then.
|
| And when they do that, the video is now against Google's
| policy and can be removed. That's the point of this policy.
| towelpluswater wrote:
| I mean they're building the labeled dataset right now by
| having creators label it for them.
|
| I would suspect this helps make moderation models better at
| estimating confidence levels of ai generated content that
| isn't labeled as such (ie for deception).
|
| Surprised we aren't seeing more of this in labeling
| datasets for this new world (outside of captchas)
| mr_toad wrote:
| > The AI tags are fundamentally useless.
|
| To the extent that they allow Google to exclude AI video
| from training sets they're obviously useful to Google.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| AI tags are to cover issues in the other direction: you
| publish an event as real, but they can prove it wasn't. If
| you didn't put the tag on it, malice can be inferred from
| your post (and further legal proceeding/moderation can
| happen)
|
| It's the same as paid reviews: tags and disclaimers exist
| to make it easier to handle cases where you intentionally
| didn't put them.
|
| It's not perfect and can be abused in other ways, but at
| least it's something.
| cottsak wrote:
| agreed! this is another censorship tool.
| valval wrote:
| They're just gathering training data to train their AI-
| detection models.
| sangnoir wrote:
| I suspect we're headed into a world of attestation via
| cryptographically signed videos. If you're the sole witness,
| then you can reduce the trust in the event, however, if it's
| a major event, then we can fall back on existing news-
| gathering machinery to validate and counter your false
| tagging (e.g. if a BBC camera captured the event, or there is
| some other corroboration & fact checking).
| smt88 wrote:
| How does the signature help? It only proves that the video
| hasn't been altered since [timestamp]. It doesn't prove
| that it wasn't AI-generated or manipulated.
| leoqa wrote:
| If I have a CCTV camera that is in a known location and a
| TPM that signs its footage, I could probably convince a
| jury that it's legit in the face of a deepfake defense.
|
| That's the bar- it's not going to be infallible but if
| you don't find evidence of tampering with the hardware
| then it's probably going to be fine.
| Gigachad wrote:
| This might be worse than nothing. It's exactly the same
| tech as DRM, which is good enough to stop the average
| person, but where tons of people have private exploits
| stashed away to crack it. So the judge and general public
| trust the system to be basically foolproof, while
| criminals can forge fake signatures using keys they
| extracted from the hardware.
| sangnoir wrote:
| Signatures are also able to (mostly) signal that a
| _specific device_ (and /or application on that device)
| captured the video. It would be possible to check if a
| video was encoded by a specific instance of an iOS Camera
| app or AfterEffects on PC.
|
| Everything else - corroboration, interviews, fact
| checking will remain as they are today and can't be
| replaced by technology. So I imagine a journalist would
| reach out to person who recorded thr video, ask them to
| show their device's fingerprint and ask about their
| experience when (event) occured, and then corroborate all
| that information from other sources.
|
| When the news org publishes the video, they may sign it
| with their own key and/or vouch for the original one so
| viewers of clips on social media will know that Fox News
| (TM) is putting their name and reputation behind the
| video, and it hasn't been altered from the version Fox
| News chose to share, even though the "ModernMilitiaMan97"
| account that reshared it seems dubious.
|
| Currently, there's no way to detect alterations or
| fabrications of both the "citizen-journalist" footage and
| post-broadcast footage.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I fear that we're barrelling fast toward a future when nobody
| can trust anything at all anymore, label or not.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| We have to expect people to think for themselves. People
| are flawed and will be deceived but trying to centralize
| critical thinking will have far more disastrous results.
| Its always been that way.
|
| Im not saying Youtube shouldn't have AI labels. Im saying
| we shouldn't assume they're reliable.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >but trying to centralize critical thinking will have far
| more disastrous results
|
| No. Having sources of trust is the basis of managing
| complexity. When you turned the tap water on and bought a
| piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify
| whether its healthy right? You trust the medicine you buy
| contains exactly what is says on the label and didn't
| take a chemistry class. That's centralized trust. You
| rely on it ten thousand times a day implicitly.
|
| There need to be measures to make sure media content is
| trustworthy, because the smartest person on the earth
| doesn't have enough resources to critically judge 1% of
| what they're exposed to every day. It is simply a
| question of information processing.
|
| It's a mathematical necessity. Information that is
| collectively processed constantly goes up, individiual
| bandwith does not, therefore you need more division of
| labor, efficieny and higher forms of social organisation.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| > Having sources of trust is the basis of managing
| complexity.
|
| This is a false equivalence that I've already addressed.
|
| > When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of
| meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether
| its healthy right?
|
| To a degree, yeah, you do check. Especially when you get
| it from somewhere with prior problems. And if you see
| something off you check further and adjust accordingly.
|
| Why resort to anology? Should we blindly trust YouTube to
| judge whats true or not? I stated that labeling videos is
| fine but what's not fine is blindly trusting it.
|
| Additionally, comparing to meat dispenses with all the
| controversy because food safety is a comparatively
| objective standard.
|
| Compare, "is this steak safe to eat or not?" To "is this
| speech safe to hear or not?"
| xarope wrote:
| I'm probably paraphrasing Schneier (and getting it
| wrong), but getting water from the tap and having it
| polluted or poisonous, has legal and criminal
| consequences. Similarly getting meat from a butcher and
| having it tainted.
|
| Right now, getting videos which are completely
| AI/deepfaked to misrepresent, are not subject to the same
| consequences, simply because either #1 people can't be
| bothered, #2 are too busy spreading it via social media,
| or #3 have no idea how to sue the party on the other
| side.
|
| And therein lies the danger, as with social media, of the
| lack of consequences (and hence the popularity of
| swatting, pretexting etc)
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| This bodes well for autocracies and would-be autocrats.
| It's the logical extreme of what they've been trying to do
| on social media over the last decade or so.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
| Gigachad wrote:
| It just goes back to trusting the source. If 5 media orgs
| post different recordings of the same political speech, you
| can be reasonably sure it actually happened, or at least
| several orders of magnitude more sure than if it's one
| blurry video from a no name account.
| pojzon wrote:
| And then you learn all of those media orgs are owned by
| the same billionare.
|
| There will be no way to say something is true beside
| seeing it with own eyes.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Then that's a single media org.
| sverhagen wrote:
| I was immediately thinking that the #AI labels are going to
| give people a false sense of trust, so that when someone
| posts a good-enough fake without the #AI label, it can do
| damage if it goes viral before it gets taken down for the
| mislabeling. (Kudos for the effort, though, YouTube.)
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Behind the scenes, I'm 99% confident that Google has
| deployed AI detection tools and will monitor for it.
|
| That said, unless all the AI generators agree on a way to
| add an unalterable marker that something is generated, at
| one point it may become undetectable. May.
| JohnFen wrote:
| I'm not aware of any AI detection tools that are actually
| effective enough to be interesting. Perhaps Google has
| some super-secret method that works, but I rather doubt
| it. If they did, I think they'd be trumpeting it from the
| hilltops.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| And this isn't new. A fad in films in the 90's was hyper-
| realistic masks on the one side, and make-up and
| prosthetics artists on the other, making people look like
| other people.
|
| Faking things is not new, and you've always been right to
| mistrust what you see on the internet. "AI" technology has
| made it easy, convenient, accessible and affordable to more
| people though, beforehand you needed image/video editing
| skills and software, a good voice mod, be a good (voice)
| actor, etc.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > you've always been right to mistrust what you see on
| the internet.
|
| But these tools make deception easier and cheaper,
| meaning it will become much more common. Also, it's not
| just "on the internet". The trust problem this brings up
| applies to everything.
| electrondood wrote:
| This deeply worries me. A post-truth society loses it's
| ability to participate in democracy, becomes a low-trust
| society, the population falls into learned helplessness and
| apathy ("who can even know what's true any more?")
|
| Look at Russian society for a sneak preview if we don't get
| this right.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Having the tag weaponizes it by itself, because people will
| now consider any content without the tag real, whether it
| actually is or not.
| drexlspivey wrote:
| The labels collected by google will certainly be used to
| train classifiers to detect AI created content so I think
| that's a legit concern.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| If you upload a real event but you're the only source, it'll
| be doubted anyway; see also, most UFO sightings.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Absolutely. Mass reporting for content violations to attack
| someone has been a tactic decades.
| deadbabe wrote:
| This isn't strictly some blackhat thing, people will attempt
| to hand wave inconvenient evidence against them as AI
| generated and build reasonable doubt.
| 4ndrewl wrote:
| It's to comply with the EU AI regulatory framework. This step
| is just additional cost they wouldn't have voluntarily burdened
| themselves with.
| okdood64 wrote:
| I know people on HN love to hate on Google, but at least
| they're a major platform that's TRYING. Mistakes will be made,
| but let's at least attempt at moving forward.
| tkiolp4 wrote:
| Basically, Google decides what's real and what's not. Cool.
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| For at least a dozen years it would seem.
| smt88 wrote:
| On their own platforms, yes. We need to break up their
| monopolies so that their choices don't matter as much.
| barfbagginus wrote:
| Don't worry Google has become incompetent - it is in the
| "Fading AOL" portion of its life cycle. Do you remember how
| incontinent AOL became in the final minutes before it became
| completely irrelevant? Sure it's taking longer with Google.
| But it's not a process that they can reverse.
|
| That means the system will be really really awful. So
| challengers can arise - maybe a challenger that YOU build,
| and open source!
| surajrmal wrote:
| I think you're living in a bubble if you believe that.
| immibis wrote:
| That open source can replace corporate centralization?
| Since centralized platforms started extracting more
| profits (including manipulation) things like Fediverse
| are on the rise. For mindless browsing, centralized is
| still king for now (Fediverse also works to an extent)
| but if your site has something better than what's on the
| centralized corporate platform, people will go there once
| they learn about it. We're on Hacker News instead of
| Reddit because?
| dev1ycan wrote:
| Eh, I think their control of Google, Youtube and Android is
| enough to keep them afloat while being as you said,
| incompetent.
| electrondood wrote:
| At least on Youtube, Google's AI does, yes.
|
| And? Do they have a track record of crafting a false reality
| for people?
| randmeerkat wrote:
| > Alters footage of a real event or place
|
| I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or
| otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future. It doesn't
| seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument
| for reasonable doubt, with any electronic media now.
| Eiim wrote:
| Bad evidence is not the same thing as inadmissible evidence.
| Evidence is admitted, and then the fact finder determines
| whether to consider it, and how much weight to give it. It is
| likely that surveillance video will be slightly less credible
| now, but can still be part of a large, convincing body of
| evidence.
| leoqa wrote:
| There will be a new side gig for 'experts' to explain
| deepfakes to a jury.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Video evidence already requires attestation to be admissible
| evidence. You need a witness to claim that the footage comes
| from a camera that was placed there, that it was collected
| from the night of, etc. It's not like the prosecutor gets a
| tape in the mail and they can present it as evidence.
| Intralexical wrote:
| By that rationale, all witness testimony and written evidence
| should already be inadmissible.
|
| This website focuses too much on the technical with little
| regard for the social a bit too often. Though in general,
| videos being easily fakable is still scary.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video
| or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future.
|
| No, it won't. Just as it does now, video evidence (like any
| other evidence that isn't testimony) will need to be
| supported by associated evidence (including, ultimately,
| testimony) as to its provenance.
|
| > It doesn't seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make
| an argument for reasonable doubt,
|
| "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the standard for criminal
| convictions, and even then is based on the totality of
| evidence tending support or refute guilt, its not a standard
| each individual piece of evidence must clear for
| admissibility.
| yosito wrote:
| As someone who studied video production two decades ago,
| regarding the criteria you mentioned for AI:
|
| - Makes a real person appear to say or do something they didn't
| say or do
|
| - Alters footage of a real event or place
|
| - Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually
| occur
|
| These are things that have been true of edited video since even
| before AI was a thing. People can lie about reality with
| videos, and AI is just one of many tools to do so. So, as you
| said, there are many flaws with this approach, but I agree that
| requiring labels is at least a step in the right direction.
| lysp wrote:
| I think it also gives them a legal / business remedy if people
| fail to label their content.
|
| If someone for example makes a political video and fails to
| label it, they can delete the video/terminate the account for a
| breach of service.
| sverhagen wrote:
| Given the regular stories posted on HN about folks who've had
| some aspect of their social or other media canceled by any
| some SaaS company, are these companies having many (legal)
| qualms as it is about canceling people without providing a
| good reason for it? Would be nice if they did, though...
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| I'd much prefer Google cancel capriciously with solid TOS
| backing to it than without, but I'll complain about their
| double standards about what they choose to censor... Not
| regardless, but without a doubt, because Google will choose
| to selectively enforce this rule.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| At the very least it wouldn't be bad for PR if Google bans
| someone for specifically breaking a clear TOS.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Always gonna be greyzones. Someone with a 60 min video
| where everything is real except 10 sec of insignificant
| b-roll footage
| chii wrote:
| but this gives room to also abuse the uncertainty to censor
| anyone without recourse - by arguing such and such video is
| "AI" (true or not), they have a plausiblely deniable reason
| to remove a video.
|
| Power is power - can be used for good or bad. This labelling
| is a form of power.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| This is no different from their existing power. They can
| already claim that a video contained copyright
| infringement, and you can only appeal that claim once, or
| try to sue Google.
| albert_e wrote:
| And some of these questions apply to more traditional video
| editing techniques also.
|
| If someone says "I am not a crook" and you edit out the "not",
| do you need to label it.
|
| What if it is done for parody.
|
| What if the edit is more subtle - where a 1 hour interview is
| edited into 10 minute excerpts.
|
| Mislabeled videos for propaganda.
|
| Or simply date or place incorrectly stated.
|
| Dramatic recreations as often done in documentaries.
|
| Etc
| mjevans wrote:
| Truth in 'advertising' is important.
|
| >> 17th angle - AI Generated vantage point based on existing 16
| videos (reference links). <<
|
| Would be * Alters footage of a real event or place
| hackernewds wrote:
| keep holding ourselves back with poorly written legislation
| designed to garner votes while rival companies take strides in
| the technology at rapid rates
| Intralexical wrote:
| > keep holding ourselves back
|
| Not everyone works in ML.
|
| > with poorly written legislation
|
| This is a company policy, not legislation.
|
| > designed to garner votes
|
| Represent the will of the people?
|
| > while rival companies take strides
|
| Towards?
|
| > in the technology at rapid rates
|
| YouTube's "Trending" page isn't a research lab.
|
| Even if it was, why would honesty slow it down?
| Intralexical wrote:
| I think the real benefit for this is that probably that it
| establishes trust as the default, and acts as a discriminator
| for good-faith uses of "AI". If _most_ non-malicious uses of ML
| are transparently disclosed, and that 's normalized, then it
| should be easier to identify and focus on bad-faith uses.
| OscarTheGrinch wrote:
| Porn classification / regulation boils down to: "I'll know it
| when I see it." Implying the existence of some hyper vigilant
| seer who can heroically determine what we should keep behind
| the video storre curtain of dencey, as if no grey areas exist.
| This also has the problem of requiring actual unbiased humans
| to view and accurately assess everything, which of course does
| not scale.
|
| Perhaps AI classification is the mirror opposite to porn, using
| the test: "I'll know it when I don't see it", ie, if an average
| user would mistake AI generated content for reality, it should
| be clearly labeled as AI. But how do we enforce this? Does such
| enforcement scale? What about malicious actors?
|
| We could conceivably use good AI to spot the bad AI, an endless
| AI cat and AI mouse game. Without strong AI regulation and
| norms a large portion of the internet will devolve into AI
| responding to AI generated content, seems like a gigantic waste
| of resources and the internet's potential.
| electrondood wrote:
| The great thing about AI, is that it's exactly optimized for
| discriminating in gray areas with difficult-to-articulate
| rules like "I'll know it when I see it."
| dumpsterlid wrote:
| You mean it is exactly optimized to extend our conscious
| and unconscious biases to gray areas in an inconsistent and
| arbitrary way?
| escapedmoose wrote:
| How so? I've previously thought that gray areas were an AI
| weakness, so I'm interested to hear the opposite
| perspective.
| hobo_in_library wrote:
| > We could conceivably use good AI to spot the bad AI
|
| I suspect this is Google's actual goal with the tagging
| system. It's not so much about helping users, rather it's a
| way to collect labeled data which they can later use to train
| their own "AI detection" algorithms
| jliptzin wrote:
| At some point fairly soon we will probably have to label
| everything as AI generated until proven otherwise
| rileymat2 wrote:
| But why does it matter if it was generated by AI instead of
| generated like Forest Gump?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Because right now AI is an issue the public and policymakers
| are concerned about, and this is to show that private
| industry can take adequate steps to control it to stave up
| government regulation while the attention is high.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I am curious to see the legal arguments that will inevitably
| kick up from each of these
|
| Google policy isn't law; there's no court judging legal
| arguments, it is enforced at Google's whim and with effectively
| no recourse, at least not one which is focused on parsing
| arguments about the details of the policy.
|
| So there won't be "legal arguments" over what exactly it
| applies to.
| peddling-brink wrote:
| Can't they be sued for breach of contract if they aren't
| following their own tos? Having a rule like this gives them
| leeway to remove what they consider harmful.
| immibis wrote:
| No, because the ToS says they can do anything they want to.
| The purpose of a ToS is to set an expectation on which
| things the company will tolerate users doing. It's (almost
| always) not legally binding for either party.
| skybrian wrote:
| I'm reminded of how banks require people to fill out forms
| explaining what they're doing, where it's expected that criminals
| will lie, but this is an easy thing to prosecute later after
| they're caught.
|
| Could a similar argument be applied here? It doesn't seem like
| there is much in the way of consequences for lying to Google. But
| I suppose they have other ways of checking for it, and catching
| someone lying is a signal that makes the account more suspicious.
| antoniojtorres wrote:
| It's a compliance checkbox for the most part I think. They can
| stay on top of new legislation by claiming they are providing
| tools to deal with misinformation, whereas it'd be easier to
| say that they are encouraging the proliferation of
| misinformation by not doing anything about it. It certainly
| shifts the legal question in the way you described it would
| seem.
| danpalmer wrote:
| Yeah I think it's a very similar approach to what you've
| described. The scale of YouTube, I don't think you can just
| start banning content you don't like. Instead you have to have
| a policy, clearly documented, and then you can start enforcing
| based on that policy.
|
| The other thing is that they don't necessarily want to ban all
| of this content. For example a video demonstrating how AI can
| be used to create misinformation and showing examples, would be
| fairly clearly "morally" ok. The policy being that you have to
| declare it allows for this sort of content to live on the
| platform, but allows you to filter it out in certain contexts
| where it may be inappropriate (searches for election coverage?)
| and allows you to badge it for users (like Covid information
| tags).
| wslh wrote:
| ELI5: what would be the difference if you use AI or it is a new
| release of Star Wars? I understand that AI does not need proof-
| of-work and that is the difference?
| xyst wrote:
| Self reporting. How useless. Wonder what legislation they are
| minimally complying with
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| These rules have really nothing to do with AI. They're trying to
| impose a ban on deceit.
| ajross wrote:
| That's like saying speed limit signs have really nothing to do
| with cars, they're trying to impose a ban on collision
| velocity. Which is true, but only speciously, as the rule
| exists only because motor vehicles made it so easy to go fast.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| They don't have anything specifically to do with cars. They
| apply equally to motorcycles, trucks and anything else that
| could go that fast. Get pulled over in a tank or a hovercraft
| and try to tell the officer that you can't have been speeding
| because it isn't a car.
|
| Should we like deepfakes any better if they're created by a
| nation state using pre-AI Hollywood production technology, or
| "by hand" with Photoshop etc.? If 3D printers get better so
| that anybody can 3D print masks you can wear to convincingly
| look like someone else and then record yourself on camera,
| would you expect a different set of rules for that or are we
| talking about the same kind of problem?
| ajross wrote:
| You missed the analogy, so I'll spell it out: before we had
| cars[1], we couldn't go fast on roads, and there were no
| speed limit signs. Before we had AI, we couldn't deceive
| people with easy fakes, and so there was no need to
| regulate it. Now we do, and there is, and YouTube did.
|
| Trying to characterize this as not related to AI just isn't
| adding to the discussion. Clearly it is a response to the
| emergence of AI fakes.
|
| [1] And all the other stuff you list
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Trying to shovel in "and all of the other stuff" breaks
| the analogy though. Misinformation isn't _new_. Image gen
| is hardly the first time you could create a fictional
| depiction of something. It 's not even the first time you
| could do it with commonly available tools. It's just the
| moral panic du jour.
|
| YouTube did this because the EU passed a law about it.
| The EU passed a law about it because of the moral panic,
| not because the abstract concept of deception was only
| recently invented.
|
| It's like having cars already, and speed limits, and then
| someone invents an electric car that can accelerate from
| 0 to 200 MPH in 5 seconds, so the government passes a new
| law with some arbitrary registration requirements to
| satisfy Something Must Be Done.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Pedantic but, I hope, amusing:
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/when-president-
| uly...
| speff wrote:
| From your comment's tone, it seems like this is supposed to be
| a bad thing. The only people who would be upset about this are
| folks who are trying to pass generated content off as real. I'm
| sorry if I don't have much sympathy for them.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| "You have to tell people if you're lying" isn't a stupid rule
| because lying is good, it's a stupid rule because liars can
| lie about lying and proving it was the original problem.
| speff wrote:
| The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used
| to take a misleading video down. Now there is.
|
| Finding out a video is maliciously fabricated is a
| different problem.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be
| used to take a misleading video down.
|
| Of course there was. The community guidelines have
| prohibited impersonation and misinformation for years.
| speff wrote:
| From the report button on a youtube video: Misinformation
| - Content that is misleading or deceptive with serious
| risk of egregious harm.
|
| That sounds like a quagmire of subjectivity to enforce.
| You can argue whether generated content was created to
| mislead or whether it would cause _egregious_ harm.
|
| Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it
| real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see
| the downside here.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| You're acting like this is a court with a judge. The
| company makes up subjective rules and then subjectively
| enforces them. There was never any arguing to begin with,
| they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random
| for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse.
|
| > Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it
| real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see
| the downside here.
|
| How is this supposed to lead to _less_ arguing? If there
| was an easy way to tell if something is AI-generated then
| you wouldn 't need the user to tag it. When there isn't,
| now you have to argue about whether it is or not -- or if
| it _obviously_ is, whether it then has to be tagged,
| because it obviously is and they 've given that as an
| exception.
| speff wrote:
| Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a
| review process and make an attempt at following the rules
| they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they
| generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule.
|
| I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it
| was actually generated - once again, that's a different
| problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My
| point was that there is less subjectivity with this rule.
| If the content is found to have been generated and isn't
| marked, then there are clear grounds to remove the video.
|
| What youtube does when there is doubt is not known yet. I
| don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this".
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have
| a review process and make an attempt at following the
| rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but
| they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a
| rule.
|
| They use (with some irony) AI and other algorithms to
| determine if you're breaking the rules, often leading to
| arbitrary or nonsensical results, which the review
| process frequently fails to address.
|
| > I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if
| it was actually generated - once again, that's a
| different problem.
|
| It isn't a different problem, it's _the_ problem. You
| want people to label things because otherwise you 're not
| sure, but because of that problem exactly, you have no
| way of reliably or objectively enforcing the labeling
| requirement. And you specifically have no way to do it in
| the cases where it most matters because it's hard to
| tell.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation
|
| At a mom and pop you could at least talk to a person and
| figure out what happen.
|
| >I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this"
|
| Did you not learn from the entire DMCA thing? Remember
| the thing where piles tech people warned "Wow, this is
| going to be used as a weapon to cause problems" and then
| it was used as a weapon to cause problems.
|
| Well, welcome to the next weapon that is going to be used
| to cause problems.
| speff wrote:
| The DMCA implementation implemented is the only thing
| that saved youtube from getting sued out of existence.
| And people on the internet don't know what fair-use
| actually means, so they complain/exaggerate about DMCA
| takedowns when, surprise, it wasn't actually covered by
| fair-use.
|
| There's a handful of cases where yt actually messed up w/
| DMCA and considering the sheer volume of videos they
| process, I'd say it's actually pretty damn good.
|
| So no, DMCA is not a valid reason to assume youtube will
| handle this improperly.
| lucianbr wrote:
| > they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random
| for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse.
|
| The ban recourse problem is the opposite.
|
| This is the "keep recourse": "this video is obviously
| bad, but google doesn't feel like taking it down, and
| there is nothing I can do about it". Now there is, and it
| can actually go to a court with a judge in the end, if
| Google is obstinate.
|
| You didn't have a right to be hosted on Google before,
| and you don't have now. Of course they can ban you as
| they like. The thing is, they can't host you as they
| like, if you're breaking this rule.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The thing is, they can't host you as they like, if
| you're breaking this rule.
|
| Except that the rule can be satisfied just by labeling
| it, and if there are penalties for not labeling but no
| penalties for labeling then the obvious incentive is to
| stick the label on everything just in case, causing it to
| become meaningless.
|
| To prevent that would require prohibiting the label from
| being applied to things that aren't AI-generated, which
| is impracticable because now you need 100% accuracy and
| there is no way to err on the side of caution, but nobody
| has 100% accuracy. So then the solution would be to
| _actually_ make everything AI-generated, e.g. by
| systematically running it through some subtle AI filter,
| and then you can get back to labeling everything to avoid
| liability.
| lucianbr wrote:
| You could be right. But I wonder if truly nobody will
| want to claim their video is not AI-generated. Seems like
| some people will, and they would get an advantage out of
| it. Yes, Fox News claims they're entertainment and nobody
| reasonable would believe them. But not all news channels
| do this.
|
| Did the California proposition 65 really result in cancer
| labels on _everything_? Or is it just hyperbole? I
| suppose having a lot of labels is still bad, even if they
| 're not technically on everything.
| poszlem wrote:
| Of course, YouTube is well-known for its methodical
| approach to video removal, strictly adhering to
| transparent guidelines, rather than deciding based on the
| "computer says no" principle.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Knock knock
|
| Who's there
|
| dmcAI takedown notice!
| frumper wrote:
| It sounds like it could also be used to take down a video
| someone thinks is fake. Proving it may be easy in some
| cases, but in other's it may be quite difficult.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Yes. This is a legislative implementation of the Evil Bit.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| They can, but it's often possible to prove it later. If you
| have a rule against lying and it's retroactively discovered
| to have been broken, then you already have the enforcement
| mechanism in place.
|
| Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have laws
| at all, because people will break them and lie about it'.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > They can, but it's often possible to prove it later. If
| you have a rule against lying and it's retroactively
| discovered to have been broken, then you already have the
| enforcement mechanism in place.
|
| It isn't a rule against lying, it's a rule requiring lies
| to be labeled. From which you get nothing useful that you
| couldn't get from a rule against lying, because you'd
| need the same proof for either one.
|
| Meanwhile it becomes a trap for the unwary because
| innocent people who don't understand the complicated
| labeling rules get stomped by the system without
| intending any malice.
|
| > Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have
| laws at all, because people will break them and lie about
| it'.
|
| The generalization is that laws against not disclosing
| crimes are pointless because the penalty for the crime is
| already at least as severe as the penalty for not
| disclosing it and you'd need to prove the crime to prove
| the omission. This is, for example, why it makes sense to
| have a right against self-incrimination.
| umanwizard wrote:
| There are already various situations where lying is banned:
| depending on the circumstances, lying might count as
| perjury, fraud, false advertising, etc. It seems silly to
| suggest that these laws serve no purpose.
| kimixa wrote:
| The same reason you have to check a box saying you're not a
| terrorist when entering the USA. It gives them a legal
| basis to actually _do_ something about it when found out
| from other means.
| jameshart wrote:
| Also, because _telling fictional stories_ has always been
| one of the most common applications of video technology.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Won't it be equally problematic for creators, particularly
| reporters/journalists, whose real content is misidentified as
| fake?
|
| This divide is obviously going to play out on two sides.
|
| Proving authenticity may turn out to be as difficult as
| proving fakeness. People will use this maliciously to flag
| and censor content they dislike.
| Gormo wrote:
| Deceit usually implies some sort of intent to defraud. I'm not
| sure using software to generate background music for a video
| fits that description.
| jachee wrote:
| RIAA has entered the chat.
|
| "It defrauds us of our hard-earned middle-man cut."
| mock-possum wrote:
| Requiring labeling / disclosure is not the same as banning.
| jahewson wrote:
| In this case it is, because labelled deceit is not deceptive.
| ehsankia wrote:
| It's a label, not a ban. Just like sponsored content is not
| banned, but must be disclosed.
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39747921.
| arduanika wrote:
| Is there a word missing from the title here? Requires whom?
| jbiason wrote:
| Same. For a second, I thought YouTube made a rule that YouTube
| is now required to flag the AI videos created by YouTube.
| samatman wrote:
| The title was editorialized, which people do far more often
| than they should. The original title, with the domain name next
| to it, would have been fine.
| cpncrunch wrote:
| Editorializing is fine, as long as it's done properly and the
| headline makes sense.
| samatman wrote:
| It is not, except under certain circumstances which this
| case does not meet.
|
| > _Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is
| misleading or linkbait; don 't editorialize._
| yoavz wrote:
| Most interesting example to me: "Digitally altering audio to make
| it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live
| performance".
|
| This seems oddly specific to the inverse of what happened
| recently with Alicia Keys from the recent Superbowl. As Robert
| Komaniecki pointed out on X [1], Alicia Keys hit a "sour note"
| which was silently edited by the NFL to fix it.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/Komaniecki_R/status/1757074365102084464
| frays wrote:
| This is a great example as a discussion point, thank you for
| sharing.
|
| I will be coming back to this video in several months time to
| check whether the "Altered or synthetic content" tag has
| actually been applied to it or not. If not, I will report it to
| YouTube.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea, it's a really super example!
|
| However autotune has existed for decades. Would it have been
| better if artists were required to label when they used
| autotune to correct their singing? I say yes but reasonable
| people can disagree!
|
| I wonder if we are going to settle on an AI regime where it's
| OK to use AI to deceptively make someone seem "better" but
| not to deceptively make someone seem "worse." We are entering
| a wild decade.
| JadedBlueEyes wrote:
| > I say yes but reasonable people can disagree!
|
| A lot of people do! Tone correction [1] is a normal fact of
| life in the music industry, especially in recordings. Using
| it well takes both some degree of vocal skill and
| production skill. You'll often find that it's incredibly
| obvious when done poorly, but nearly unnoticeable when done
| well.
|
| [1] AutoTune is a specific brand
| elpocko wrote:
| Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular
| singer hit a lot of notes is still fine though.
| yoavz wrote:
| Correct, it's the inverse that requires disclosure by
| Youtube.
|
| Still, I find it interesting. If you can't synthetically
| alter someone's performance to be "worse", is it OK that the
| NFL synthetically altered Alicia Key's performance to be
| "better"?
|
| For a more consequential example, imagine Biden's marketing
| team "cleaning up" his speech after he has mumbled or trailed
| off a word, misleading the US public during an election year.
| Should that be disclosed?
| hackernewds wrote:
| I don't understand the distinction. if the intent is to
| protect the user, then what if I make the sound better for
| rival contestants on American idol and don't do it for
| singers of a certain race.
|
| seems to comply?
| post_break wrote:
| Oh no, is that going to mess up my favorite genre called
| shreds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAhQOoJTIA
| wccrawford wrote:
| Only if people start rejecting it because they learn it was
| modified by AI.
|
| If they don't reject it for that, nothing changes.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| If it's realistic who will know?
| simion314 wrote:
| >If it's realistic who will know?
|
| Look at "realistic" photos , it is easy for someone with
| experience to spot issues, the hangs/fingers are wrong, shadows
| and light are wrong, hair is weird, eyes have issues. In a
| video there are much more information so much more places to
| get things wrong, making it pass this kind of test will be a
| huge job so many will not put the effort.
| lampiaio wrote:
| AI that is indistinguishable from reality is a certainty for the
| not-so-distant future.
|
| That future _will_ come, and it will come sooner than anyone 's
| expecting.
|
| Yet all I see is society trying to prevent the inevitable from
| installing itself (because it's "scary", "dangerous", "undermines
| the very pillars of society" etc.), instead of preparing itself
| for when the inevitable occurs.
|
| People seem to have finally accepted we can't put the genie back
| in the bottle, so now we're at the stage where governments and
| institutions are all trying to look busy and pass the image of
| "hey, we're _doing_ something about it, ok? You can feel safe ".
|
| Soon we will be forced to accept that all that wasted effort was
| but a futile attempt at catching a falling knife.
|
| Maybe the next idiom in line will be "crying over spilled milk",
| because could someone point me to what is being done in terms of
| "hey, let's start by directly assuming a world in which anyone
| can produce unrestricted, genuine-looking content will soon come
| and there's no way around it -- what then?"
|
| All I see is a meteor approaching and everyone trying to divert
| it, but no one actually preparing for when it does hit. Each day
| that passes I'm more certain that we will we look at each other
| like fools, asking ourselves "why didn't we focus on preparing
| for change, instead of trying to prevent change"?
| skobes wrote:
| What sort of preparations do you recommend?
| lampiaio wrote:
| There's a saying in my local language that people usually say
| to someone who's going through a breakup or going through an
| unfair situation:
|
| _" Accept it, it hurts less"_.
|
| I'm not saying it makes the actual situation any better; it
| obviously doesn't. But anyone can feel the rarefied AI panic
| in the air growing thicker by the minute, and panic will only
| make the situation worse both before and after absolute
| change takes place.
|
| When we don't accept incoming change before it arrives, we
| surely are forced to accept it _after_ it arrives, at a much
| higher price.
|
| You asked about preparations: prepare yourself to see
| governments try (and fail) to regulate what processing power
| can be acquired by consumers. Prepare yourself for the
| serious proposal of "truth-checking agencies" with certified
| signatures that ensure _" this content had its chain of
| custody verified as authentic from its CMOS capture up to its
| encoded video stream"_, in which a lot of time and effort
| will be wasted (there's already people replying about this,
| saying metadata and/or encryption will come to the rescue via
| private/public keys. Supposedly no will would ever film a
| screen!).
|
| The above might seem an exaggeration, but ask yourself: the
| YouTube guidelines this post is about, the recent EU
| regulation... do you think those are enough? Of course
| they're not. They will keep trying to solve the problem from
| the wrong end until they are (we are) forced to accept
| there's nothing that can be done about it, and that it is us
| who need to adapt to live in such a world.
|
| Enjoy the ride, I suppose.
| alex_duf wrote:
| What would you do then if you could prepare for a world where
| it's already here? Where the asteroid already hit, to use your
| own metaphor.
| cush wrote:
| There are some interesting hardware solutions from camera
| makers that provide provably authentic metadata and watermarks
| to videos and images - mostly useful for journalists, but soon
| consumers will expecting this to be exposed on social media
| platforms and those they follow on social media. There really
| are genuinely valuable things happening in this space.
| samatman wrote:
| This will always be spoofable by projecting the AI content
| onto the sensor and playing it to the microphone. Which will
| give the spurious content a veneer of authenticity, this is
| within reach of a talented malicious amateur, and would be
| trivial for nationa-state actors to do at scale.
| lampiaio wrote:
| Thank you for pointing that out, I want to reply to
| everyone here but I don't think I have it in me to fight
| this battle. It seems my initial message of "have we
| questioned ourselves what we'll do should the
| countermeasures fail?" fell on deaf ears. I asked a very
| simple question: "what will we do / should we do when faced
| with a world in which no content can be trusted as true",
| and most replies just went on to list the countermeasures
| being worked on. I will follow my own advice and simply
| accept that is how the band plays.
| cush wrote:
| Of course. I don't think anyone is going to be arguing that
| content captured by these cameras is real, it's that the
| content is captured by the owner of that specific camera.
| There always needs to be some aspect of trust, and the
| value comes in connecting that with a trusted identity. Eg
| one couldn't embed the CSPAN watermarks from a non-CSPAN
| camera.
| survirtual wrote:
| We've been preparing for a while? It's all that work people
| have been doing for years with asynchronous cryptography, ecc,
| and tech like what happens during heavy rain downpours and that
| coin with a bit in front of it.
|
| These are all the proper preparation for AI. AI can't generate
| a private key given a public key. AI can't generate the
| appropriate text given a hash.
|
| So we build a society upon these things AI can't do.
|
| It has been a good run. We have done things like the tried and
| true ink stamping to verify documents. We have a labyrinth of
| bureaucracy for every little activity, mostly because it is the
| way that has always worked. It has surely been nice for the
| "administration" to sit around and sip lemonade in their
| archaic jobs. It has been nice to have incompetent people with
| no vision being appointed to high places for being born into
| the right families connected with the right people. That gravy
| train was surely a joy for those who were a part of it.
|
| Sadly, it won't work anymore. We will need competent people now
| that actually care.
|
| We need everything to be authenticated now with digital
| signatures.
|
| It is not even that difficult a problem to solve. The existing
| systems are far more complex, far more prone to error, far more
| expensive, and far more difficult to navigate.
|
| AI is giving us an opportunity to evolve. It is a time for
| celebration. Society will be faster, more efficient, more
| secure, and much more fun with generative content. AIs will
| produce official AI-signed content, and unsigned content.
| Humans will produce official human signed content, and unsigned
| content. Some AIs will use humans to sign content to subvert
| systems. But all of this pales in comparison to the fraud,
| waste, and total abuse of the current system.
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| Most nefarious AI content is going to be posted by humans
| misusing the AI tools, as opposed to some kind of AI gone
| rogue.
|
| These humans would simply generate a public key from the
| private key, then post it under their human identity. The
| main threat from AI in the future IMO is not rouge AI, but
| bad human actors using it for their own nefarious agendas.
| This is how the first "evil" AI will probably come about.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Forgive me on an initial reading, it is hard to have a nuanced
| discussion on this stuff without coming off like an uncaring
| caricature of one of two stereotypes, or look like you're
| attacking your interlocutor. When I'm writing these out, it's
| free association like I'm writing a diary entry, not as a
| critique of your well-reasoned and 100% accurate take.
|
| Personal thoughts:
|
| - we're already a year past the point where it was widely known
| you can generate whatever you want, and get it to a reasonable
| "real" threshold with less than a day worth of work.
|
| - the impact is likely to be significantly muted, rather than
| an exponential increase upon, a 2020 baseline. professionals
| were capable of accomplishing this with a couple orders of
| magnitude more manual work for at least a decade.
|
| - in general, we've suffered more societally from
| histrionics/over-reactions to being bombarded with the same
| messaging
|
| - it thus should end up being _net good_, in that a skeptic has
| a 100% accurate argument for requiring more explanation than
| "wow look at this!"
|
| - I expect that being able to justify / source / explain things
| will gain significant value relative to scaled up distributors
| giving out media someone else gave them without any review.
|
| - something I've noticed the last couple years is people
| __hate__ looking stupid. __Hate__. They learn extremely quickly
| to refactor knowledge they think they have once confronted in
| public, even by the outgroup, as long as theyre a non-
| extremist.
|
| After writing that out, I guess my tl;Dr as of this moment and
| mood, is there will be negligible negative effects, we already
| reached a nadir of unquestioned BS sometime between 2010 and
| 2024, and a baseline be _anyone_ can easily BS will lead to
| wide acceptance of skeptical reactions, even within ingroups.
|
| God I hope I'm right.
| lampiaio wrote:
| I like the outlook you build through your observations, and I
| acknowledge the possible conclusion you arrive at as
| plausible. I do, however, put a heavier weight on your first
| point because I see what we have today in terms of
| image/video generation as very rudimentary compared to what
| we'll have in a couple years. A day's worth of work for a
| 100% convincing, AI-generated video immune to the most
| advanced forensics? We'll soon have it instantaneously.
|
| Thank you for the preface you wrote, I completely understand
| your point of how easy it is to sound like a contrarian
| online, I'm sure my writing style doesn't help much on that
| front I'm afraid to admit.
| dorkwood wrote:
| > All I see is a meteor approaching and everyone trying to
| divert it, but no one actually preparing for when it does hit.
| Each day that passes I'm more certain that we will we look at
| each other like fools, asking ourselves "why didn't we focus on
| preparing for change, instead of trying to prevent change"?
|
| I don't know, we've done a pretty good job at preventing
| nuclear war so far. We didn't just say "oh well, the genie is
| out of the bottle now. Everyone will have nuclear weapons soon
| and there's nothing we can do about it. All wars from now on
| are going to be nuclear. Might as well start preparing for
| nuclear winter." We signed treaties and made laws and used
| force to prevent us all from killing each other.
| cush wrote:
| Ah it's better than nothing!
| paulpauper wrote:
| Scammers have been making fake content on youtube since its
| founding. And youtube has never even pretended so much as to
| care about doing anything about it.
| qwertox wrote:
| How about first removing those crypto-scam channels which pop up
| whenever something big happens at SpaceX.
| yoavz wrote:
| I am not envious of the policy folks at Youtube who will have to
| parse out all the edge cases over the next few years. They are up
| against a nearly impossible task.
|
| https://novehiclesinthepark.com/
| rchaud wrote:
| It's not like there are any real consequences if they don't get
| it right. Deepfake ads already exist on YT.
| asadotzler wrote:
| Certainly there are if YouTube wants to continue to do
| business in the EU.
| 111111101101 wrote:
| We can't have the proles misrepresenting reality the same way
| that the rich have been doing for the last century. Rules for
| thee but not for me.
| paulpauper wrote:
| We cannot have fake content on youtube now! No way.
| rchaud wrote:
| Google of yore would have offered a 'not AI' type of filter in
| their advanced search.
|
| Present day Google is too busy selling AI shovels to quell Wall
| St's grumbling, to even consider what AI video will to do to the
| already bad 'needle in a haystack' nature of search.
| exodust wrote:
| A "not AI" filter is an excellent idea.
| bgirard wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up like prop 65 cancer
| warnings, or cookie banners. The intention might be to separate
| believable but low quality hallucinated AI content spam from high
| quality manual content. But it will backfire like prop 65. You'll
| see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be used in
| all parts of the content creation pipeline.
|
| I see YouTube's own guidelines in the article and they seem
| reasonable. But I think over time the line will move, be unclear
| and we'll end up like prop 65 anyways.
| bombcar wrote:
| This is exactly what will happen, just like with cookie
| warnings, etc.
|
| To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the
| item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present.
|
| Otherwise you stick a prop 65 "may contain" warning on
| everything, and it's pointless.
|
| (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in
| compliance with AI notification complications.)
| Jensson wrote:
| The "sponsored content" tag on youtube seems to work very
| well though. Most content creators don't want to label their
| videos sponsored unless they are, I assume the same goes for
| AI generated content flags. Why would a manual content
| creator want to add that?
|
| > This post may have been generated by AI
|
| I doubt "may" is enough.
| nemomarx wrote:
| I think the concern is people might use the label out of
| caution if Adobe has some automatic AI enhancement in your
| video editor or whatever?
| wongarsu wrote:
| That would be either poor understanding or poor
| enforcement of the rule, since they specifically list
| stuff special effects, beauty filters etc as allowed.
|
| A more plausible scenario would be if you aren't sure if
| all your stock footage is real. Though with youtube
| creators being one of the biggest groups of customers for
| stock footage I expect most providers will put very clear
| labeling in place.
| ehsankia wrote:
| That's a much clearer line though, it's much simpler to
| know if you were paid to create this content or not. Use of
| AI isn't, especially if it's deep in some tool you used.
|
| Does blurring part of the image with Photoshop count? What
| if Photoshop used AI behind the scene for whatever filter
| you applied? What about some video editor feature that
| helps with audio/video synchronization or background
| removal?
| ryandrake wrote:
| Maybe this could motivate toolmakers to label their own
| products as "Uses AI" or "AI Free" allowing content
| creators verify their entire toolchain to be AI Free.
|
| As opposed to today, where companies are doing everything
| they can, stretching the truth, just so they can market
| their tools as "Using AI."
| huhlig wrote:
| Where do you draw the line on things like Photoshop or
| Premier where AI suffuses the entire product. Not
| everything AI is generative AI.
| munk-a wrote:
| You can't use them - other tools that match most of the
| functionality without including AI tools will emerge and
| take over the market if this is an important thing to
| people... alternatively Adobe wises up and rolls back AI
| stuff or isolates it into consumer-level only things that
| mark images as tainted.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This is a great point and I don't know. We are entering a
| strange and seemingly totally untrustworthy world. I
| wouldn't want to have to litigate all this.
| xp84 wrote:
| This is depressing, we're going to intentionally use
| worse tools to avoid some idiotic scare label. Basically
| the entire GMO or "artificial flavor" debates all over
| again.
|
| If you edit this image by hand you're good, but if you
| use a tool that "uses AI" to do it, you need to put the
| scare label on. Even if pixel-for-pixel both methods
| output the identical image! Just as a GMO/not GMO has no
| correlation to harmful compounds being in the food, and
| artificial flavors are generally more pure than those
| extracted from some wacky and more expensive means from a
| "natural" item.
| alwa wrote:
| You may be interested in the Content Authenticity
| Initiative's Content Credentials. The idea seems to be to
| keep a more-or-less-tamperproof provenance of changes to
| an image from the moment the light hits the camera's
| sensor.
|
| It sounds like the idea is to normalize the use of such
| an attribution trail in the media industry, so that
| eventually audiences could start to be suspicious of
| images lacking attribution.
|
| Adobe in particular seems to be interested in making
| GenAI-enabled features of its tools automatically apply a
| Content Credential indicating their use, and in making it
| easier to keep the content attribution metadata than to
| strip it out.
| munk-a wrote:
| This is a problem of provenance (as it's known in the art
| world) and being certain of the provanence is a difficult
| thing to do - it's like converting a cowboy coded C++
| project to consistently using const... you need to dig
| deep into every corner and prefer dependencies that obey
| proper const usage. Doing that as an individual content
| creator would be extremely daunting - but this isn't
| about individuals. If Getty has a policy against AI and
| guarantees no AI generation on their platform while
| Shutterstock doesn't[1] then creators may end up
| preferring Getty so that they can label their otherwise
| AI free content as such on Youtube - maybe it gets
| incorporated into the algorithm and gets them more views
| - maybe it's just a moral thing... if there's market
| pressure then the down-the-chain people will start
| getting stricter and, especially if one of those
| intermediary stock providers violates an agreement and
| gets hit with a lawsuit, then we might see a more
| concerted movement to crack down on AI generation.
|
| At the end of the day it's going to be drenched in
| contracts and obscure proofs of trust - i.e. some signing
| cert you can attach to an image if it was generated on an
| entirely controlled environment that prohibits known AI
| generation techniques - that technical side is going to
| be an arms race and I don't know if we can win it (which
| may just result in small creators being bullied out of
| the market)... but above the technical level I think
| we've already got all the tools we need.
|
| 1. These two examples are entirely fabricated
| tehwebguy wrote:
| The "Sponsored Content" tag on a channel should link to a
| video of face / voice of the channel talking about what
| sponsored content means in a way that's FTC compliant.
| bgirard wrote:
| > To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on
| the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present.
|
| I think for it to be effective you'd have to require them to
| provide an itemized list of WHAT is AI generated. Otherwise
| what if a content creator has a GenAI logo or feature that's
| in every video and put a lazy disclaimer.
|
| > (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in
| compliance with AI notification complications.)
|
| :D
| wolpoli wrote:
| Yes, AI could have been used anywhere in the production
| pipeline: AI could be in the script, could be used in the
| stock photo or video, and more.
| BHSPitMonkey wrote:
| The same is true for an asset's licensing/royalty-free
| status, which creators are surely aware of when pulling
| these things in.
| nomel wrote:
| For something like YouTube, you could have the video's
| progress bar be a different color for the AI sections.
| Maybe three: real, unknown, AI. Without an "unknown" type
| tag, you wouldn't be able to safely use clips.
| schoen wrote:
| The Prop 65 warnings are probably unhelpful even when
| accurate because they don't show anything about the level of
| risk or how typical or atypical it is for a given context.
| (I'm thinking especially about warnings on buildings more
| than on food products, although the same problem exists to
| some degree for food.)
|
| It's very possible that Prop 65 has motivated some businesses
| to avoid using toxic chemicals, but it doesn't often help
| individuals make effective health decisions.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Prop 65 is also way too broad. It needs to be specific
| about what carcinogens you're being exposed to and not just
| "it's a parking garage and this is our legally mandated
| sign"
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| As of 2016 companies are required to list the specific
| chemical and how to avoid or minimize exposure.
| xp84 wrote:
| Seems to still be pretty pointless considering that roads
| and parking lots and garages are all to be avoided if you
| want to avoid exposure... just stay away from any of
| those
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| It's great for things you wouldn't expect. Like mercury
| in fish, or lead and BPA in plastic.
| dawnerd wrote:
| I have yet to see any of that in practice. Guessing no
| one is enforcing it.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| There was a push to crack down on over labeling, but
| manufacturers have pushed back quite a bit.
|
| https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/california-
| warni...
| katbyte wrote:
| While you may think it didn't have an effect a recent 99pi
| episode covered it and it sounds like it has definitely
| motivated many companies to remove chemicals from their
| products.
|
| It's not perfect but it has had a positive effect
| https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-
| podcast-...
| MBCook wrote:
| Beat me to it!
|
| As a non-Californian I'm used to them from the little
| stickers on seemingly every electronics cable that comes
| with something I buy.
|
| But from listening to that episode when it came out it
| sounds like it really has helped a lot, even if it's also
| become kind of obnoxious.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| seemingly every electronics cable
|
| If it's something you've bought recently the offending
| ingredient should be listed. Otherwise, my money would be
| on lead being used as a plasticizer. Either way at least
| you have the tools to find out now.
| pixl97 wrote:
| But does it actually benefit the customer?
|
| Like is it one of those things the remove a 1 in a
| billion chance of cancer, and now have a product that
| wears out twice as fast leading to a doubling of sales?
| schoen wrote:
| Thanks, that's an interesting overview.
| ben_w wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| First time I was in CA, my then-partner's mother saw a Prop
| 65 notice and asked why they couldn't just ban the
| substances.
|
| We were in a restaurant that served alcohol, one of the
| known substances is... alcoholic beverages.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_lis
| t...
|
| Banning that didn't work out so well the last time.
| Fatnino wrote:
| The entire Stanford campus (which is much bigger than a
| typical university) has a prop 65 warning at the entrance.
|
| 898 Bowdoin St https://maps.app.goo.gl/uHTTd7yYtAibAg1QA
|
| Some of the street view passes the sign is washed out.
| Click through to different times to see the sign.
| aeternum wrote:
| How much AI is enough to warrant it though. Like is human
| motion-capture based content AI or human? How about automatic
| touchup makeup? At what point does touch-up become face swap?
| jcalx wrote:
| This will make AI the new sesame allergen [1] -- if you
| aren't 100% certain every asset you use isn't AI-generated,
| then it makes sense to stick some AI-generated content in and
| label the video accordingly, out of compliance.
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
| shots/2023/08/30/1196640...
| xp84 wrote:
| Wow. This is an awesome education on why you can't just
| regulate the world into what you want it to be without
| regard to feasibility. I'm sure the few who are allergic
| are mad, but it would also be messed up to just ban all
| "allergens" across the board - which is the only effective
| and fair way to guarantee that this approach couldn't ever
| be used to comply with these laws. There isn't much out
| there that _somebody_ isn't allergic to or intolerant of.
| pixl97 wrote:
| >would also be messed up to just ban all "allergens"
| across the board -
|
| Lol, this sounds like one of those fabels where an idiot
| king bans all allergens then a week later everyone is
| starving to death in the kingdom because it turns out
| that in a large enough population there will be enough
| different allergies that everything gets banned.
| aspyct wrote:
| Disagree. I will proudly write that my work is AI free.
| winter_blue wrote:
| I've found Prop 65 warnings to be useful. They're not
| pervasively everywhere; but when I see a Prop 65 warning, I
| consciously try to pick a product without it.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on
| the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present.
|
| That already happens for foods.
|
| The solution for suppliers is to intentionally add small
| quantities of allergens (sesame). [1] By having that as an
| actual ingredient, manufacturers don't have to worry about
| whether or not there is cross contamination while processing.
|
| [1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/allergyimmunology/allergy/10
| 652...
| tehwebguy wrote:
| I think the opposite will happen, non-AI content will be
| "certified organic"
| aodonnell2536 wrote:
| This may be a good thing, as it could teach the public some
| skills for identifying whether or not content has been AI
| generated.
|
| Eventually, it may be completely indiscernible, but we aren't
| there yet
| yaomingite wrote:
| AI can already create photo-realistic images, and the old
| "look at the hands" rule doesn't really work on images
| generated with modern models.
|
| There may be a few tells still, but those won't last long,
| and the moment someone can find a new pattern you can make
| that a negative prompt for new images to avoid repeating the
| same mistake.
|
| I think we are already there, and it seems like we aren't
| because many people are using free low-quality models with a
| low number of steps because its more accessible.
| samstave wrote:
| Or such construction/arch things such as "TITLE N"
| compliance...
|
| For any physical build there are typ "TITLE 25" such disclosurs
| that are required for any new-build plans...
|
| Maybe we have TITLE N as designed by AI discolsures that will
| be needed...
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| Am I the only one who is bothered by calling this phenomenon
| "hallucinating"?
|
| It's marketing-speak and corporate buzzwords to cover for the
| fact that their LLMs often produced wrong information because
| they aren't capable of understanding your request, nuance, or
| the training data it used is wrong, or the model just plain
| sucks.
|
| Would we tolerate such doublespeak it were anything else?
| "Well, you ordered a side of fries with your burger but because
| our wait staff made a mistake...sorry, hallucinated, they
| brought you a peanut butter sandwich that's growing mold
| instead."
|
| It gets more concerning when the stakes are raised. When LLMs
| (inevitably) start getting used in more important contexts,
| like healthcare. "I know your file says you're allergic to
| penicillin and you repeated when talking to our ai-doctor but
| it hallucinated that you weren't."
| samatman wrote:
| You're not the only one. I will continue to fight the losing
| battle for "confabulation" for as long as the problem remains
| current.
| altairprime wrote:
| Human beings regularly hallucinate details that aren't real
| when asked to provide their memories of an event, and often
| don't realize they're doing it at all. So whole AI definitely
| is lacking in the "can assess fact versus fiction"
| department, that's an overlapping problem with "invents
| things that aren't actually real". It can, today, hallucinate
| accurate and inaccurate information, but it can't determine
| validity _at all_ , so it's sometimes wrong even when _not_
| hallucinating.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Nonsense. It isn't marketing speak to cover for anything.
| It's a pretty good description of what is happening.
|
| The reason models hallucinate is because we train them to
| produce linguistically plausible output, which _usually_
| overlaps well with factually correct output (because it
| wouldn 't be plausible to say e.g. "Barack Obama is white").
| But when there isn't much data to show that something that is
| totally made up is implausible then there's no penalty to the
| model for it.
|
| It's nothing to do with not being able to understand your
| request, and it's rarely because the training data is wrong.
| dartos wrote:
| "Hallucinate" is definitely marketing.
|
| it translates to "Creates text which contains incorrect or
| invalid information"
|
| The latter just doesn't sound as good in
| headlines/articles/tutorials (eg. marketing material).
| ryandrake wrote:
| We already have words for when a computer program
| produces unexpected/incorrect output: "defect" and "bug"
| dartos wrote:
| The weird thing is, it's not a bug of software, it's a
| limitation.
|
| The software is working as designed, statistics are just
| imperfect
| ben_w wrote:
| It's a term of art from the days of image recognition AI
| that would confidently report seeing a giraffe while
| looking at a picture of an ambulance.
|
| It doesn't feel right to me either, to use it in the
| context of generative AI, and I'd support renaming this
| behaviour in GenAI (text and images both) -- though
| myself I'd call this behaviour "mis-remembering".
|
| Edit: apparently some have suggested "delusion". That
| also works for me.
| lucianbr wrote:
| So if I replied to your comment with "you are incorrect"
| I would be putting you in a worse light than saying "you
| are hallucinating"? The second is making it sound better?
| Doesn't feel that way to me.
| JohnFen wrote:
| My problem with "hallucination" isn't that it makes error
| sound better or worse, it's that it makes it sound like
| there's a consciousness involved when there isn't.
| IshKebab wrote:
| It's definitely not marketing. It has been in use for a
| lot longer than LLMs existed.
| dartos wrote:
| Links?
|
| Also those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
|
| Errors in statistical models being called hallucinations
| in the past does not mean that term is not marketing
| speak for what I said earlier.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Here's an example from 2019.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRDfzjxzj3M
|
| > Also those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
|
| > Errors in statistical models being called
| hallucinations in the past does not mean that term is not
| marketing speak for what I said earlier.
|
| The implicit claim was that they call this hallucination
| _because_ it sounds better. In other words that some
| marketing people thought "what's a nicer word for
| 'mistakes'?" That is categorically untrue.
|
| I don't think there's any point arguing about whether or
| not the marketers _like_ the use of the word
| "hallucinate" because neither of us has any evidence
| either way. Though I was also say the null hypothesis is
| that they're just using the standard word for it. So the
| onus is on you to provide some evidence that marketers
| came in an said "guys, make sure you say 'hallucinate'".
| Which I'm 99% sure has never happened.
| lucianbr wrote:
| To me it sounds pretty damning. "The tool hallucinates" makes
| me think it's completely out of touch with reality, spouting
| nonsense. While "It has made a mistake, it is factually
| incorrect" would apply to many of my comments if taken very
| literally.
|
| Webster definition: "a sensory perception (such as a visual
| image or a sound) that occurs in the absence of an actual
| external stimulus and usually arises from neurological
| disturbance (such as that associated with delirium tremens,
| schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, or narcolepsy) or in
| response to drugs (such as LSD or phencyclidine)".
|
| I would fire with prejudice any marketing department that
| associated our product with "delirium tremens, schizophrenia,
| [...] LSD or phencyclidine".
| ToValueFunfetti wrote:
| I don't get this at all. "Hallucinate" to me only can mean
| "produce false information". I've only ever seen it used
| perjoratively re: AI, and I don't understand what it covers
| up- how else are people interpreting it? I could see the
| point if you were saying that it implies sentience that isn't
| there, but your analogy to a restaurant implies that's not
| what you're getting at.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| > Would we tolerate such doublespeak it were anything else?
|
| Yes: identity theft. My identity wasn't "stolen", what really
| happened was a company gave a bad loan.
|
| But calling it identity theft shifts the blame. Now it's my
| job to keep my data "safe", not their job to make sure
| they're giving the right person the loan.
| oaktowner wrote:
| I can't stand it being called "hallucinating" because it
| anthropomorphizes the technology. This isn't a conciousness
| that is "seeing" things that don't exist: it's a word
| generator that is generating words that don't make sense (not
| in a syntactic sense, but in a semantic sense).
|
| Calling it "hallucination" implies that there are (other)
| moments when it is understanding the world correctly -- and
| that itself is not true. At those moments, it is a word
| generator that is generating words that DO make sense.
|
| At no point is this a conciousness, and anthropomorphizing it
| gives the impression that it is one.
| JohnFen wrote:
| This. It's not "hallucination", it's "error".
| krapp wrote:
| It isn't an error, either. It's doing exactly what it's
| intended to, exactly as it's intended to do it. The error
| is in the human assumption that the ability to construct
| syntactically coherent language signals self-awareness or
| sentience. That it _should_ be capable of understanding
| the semantics correctly, because humans obviously can.
|
| There really is no correct word to describe what's
| happening, because LLMs are effectively philosophical
| zombies. We have no metaphors for an entity that can
| appear to hold a coherent conversation, do useful work
| and respond to commands but _not think._ All we have is
| metaphors from human behavior which presume the
| connection between language and intellect, because that
| 's all we know. Unfortunately we also have nearly a
| century of pop culture telling us "AI" is like Data from
| Star Trek, perfectly logical, superintelligent and always
| correct.
|
| And "hallucination" is good enough. It gets the point
| across, that these things can't be trusted.
| "Confabulation" would be better, but fewer people know
| it, and it's more important to communicate the
| untrustworthy nature of LLMs to the masses than it is to
| be technically precise.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > It isn't an error, either. It's doing exactly what it's
| intended to, exactly as it's intended to do it.
|
| If the output is incorrect, that's error. It may not be a
| bug, but it is still error.
| krapp wrote:
| Calling it an error implies the model should be expected
| to be correct, the way a calculator should be expected to
| be correct. It generates syntactically correct language,
| and that's all it does. There is no "calculation"
| involved, so the concept of an "error" is meaningless -
| the sentences it creates either only happen to correlate
| to truth, or not, but it's coincidence either way.
| int_19h wrote:
| That's one hell of a coincidence if it just "happens" to
| write syntactically correct code that does what the user
| asked, for example.
| krapp wrote:
| It is.
|
| It's a language model, trained on syntactically correct
| code, with a data set which presumably contains more
| correct examples of code than not, so it isn't surprising
| that it can generate syntactically correct code, or even
| code which correlates to valid solutions.
|
| But if it actually had insight and knowledge about the
| code it generated, it would never generate random,
| useless (but syntactically correct) code, nor would it
| copy code verbatim, including comments and license text.
|
| It's a hell of a trick, but a trick is what it is. The
| fact that you can adjust the randomness in a query should
| give it away. It's de rigueur around here to equate
| everything a human does with everything an LLM does,
| including mistakes, but human programmers don't make
| mistakes the way LLMs do, and human programmers don't
| come with temperature sliders.
| int_19h wrote:
| It's not surprising if it generated syntactically correct
| code that does _random_ things.
|
| The fact that it instead generates syntactically correct
| code that, more often than not, solves - or at least
| tries to solve - the problem that is posited, indicates
| that there is a "there" there, however much one talks
| about stochastic parrots and such.
|
| As for temperature sliders for humans, that's what drugs
| are in many ways.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Calling it an error implies the model should be
| expected to be correct
|
| To a degree, people do expect the output to be correct.
| But in my view, that's orthogonal to the use of the term
| "error" in this sense.
|
| If an LLM says something that's not true, that's an
| erroneous statement. Whether or not the LLM is intended
| or expected to produce accurate output isn't relevant to
| that at all. It's in error nonetheless, and calling it
| that rather than "hallucination" is much more accurate.
|
| After all, when people say things that are in error, we
| don't say they're "hallucinating". We say they're wrong.
|
| > It generates syntactically correct language, and that's
| all it does.
|
| Yes indeed. I think where we're misunderstanding each
| other is that I'm not talking about whether or not the
| LLM is functioning correctly (that's why I wouldn't call
| it a "bug"), I'm talking about whether or not factual
| statements it produces are correct.
| programjames wrote:
| I think people are much more conservative with their health
| than text generation. If the text looks funky, you can just
| try regenerating it, or write it yourself and have only lost
| a few minutes. If your health starts looking funky, you're
| kind of screwed.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| You put prop 65 as backfiring, but it looks to me like the
| original intent was reducing toxic products in tap water for
| instance and it largely achieved that goal.
|
| From there warnings proliferated on so many more products, but
| getting told that chocolate bars can cause cancer is still a
| reasonable tradeoff. Especially as nothing is stopping the law
| from getting tweaked from there.
|
| Comparing it to prop 65 or GDPR makes it look like a probably
| deeply effective, yes slightly annoying rule...I sure hope
| that's what we end up with.
| Aerroon wrote:
| I think the main way where the line will move is what is
| considered "realistic" and what is "animation".
|
| A lot of early stable diffusion seemed "realistic" but
| comparing them to newer stuff makes them stand out at obviously
| AI generated and unrealistic.
| aiauthoritydev2 wrote:
| Yes. Nearly all EU regulations are going to end up like that.
| Over-regulate and people develop blindness to regulations. Our
| best hope right now is that EU becomes more and more irrelevant
| as the gap between US and EU grows to the point American
| companies can simply bankroll the EU leaders.
| damiankennedy wrote:
| Meanwhile, United orders more from Airbus.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > You'll see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be
| used in all parts of the content creation pipeline.
|
| Which would be OK with me, personally. Right now, those cookie
| banners do serve a valuable function for me -- when I see them,
| I know to treat the site with caution and skepticism. If AI
| warnings end up similar, they too will serve a similar purpose.
| It's all better than nothing.
| TurningCanadian wrote:
| I like sites whose cookie banner gives options instead of
| only having "Accept All". It makes you feel more respected as
| a user.
| renegade-otter wrote:
| Cookie banners are not required even by EU laws. It's a stupid
| trend everyone is copying.
| hnbad wrote:
| That's technically correct but not entirely true.
|
| The ePrivacy directive and GDPR don't literally require
| cookie banners but the former requires disclosure of specific
| information and the latter requires consent for most forms of
| data collection and processing. Even the 2002 directive
| actually require an option to refuse cookies which many
| cookie banners still fail to implement properly post-GDPR.
|
| The problem is that most websites want to start collecting,
| tracking and processing data that requires consent before any
| interaction takes place that would allow for a contextual
| opt-in. This means they have to get that consent somehow and
| the "cookie banner" or consent dialog serves that purpose.
|
| Of course many (especially American) implementations get this
| hilariously wrong by a) collecting and processing data even
| before consent is established, b) not making opt-out as
| trivial as opt-in despite the ePrivacy directive explicitly
| requiring this (e.g. hiding "refuse" behind a "more info"
| button or not giving it the same weight as "accept all"), c)
| not actually specifying the details on what data is collected
| etc to the level required by the directive, d) not providing
| any way to revise/change the selections (especially
| withdrawing consent previously given) and e) trying to trick
| users with a manual opt-out checkbox per advertiser/service
| labeled "legitimate interest" which is an _alternative_ to
| consent and thus is not something you can opt out of because
| it does not require consent (but of course in these cases the
| use never actually qualifies as "legitimate interest" to
| begin with and the opt-out is a poorly constructed CYA).
|
| In a different world, consent dialogs could work entirely
| like mobile app permissions: if you haven't given consent for
| something you'll be prompted when it becomes relevant. But
| apparently most sites bank on users pressing "accept all" to
| get rid of the annoying banner - although of course legally
| they probably don't even have data to determine if this
| gamble works for them because most analytics requires consent
| (i.e. your analytics will show a near 100% acceptance rate
| because you only see the data of users who opted into
| analytics and they likely just pressed "accept all").
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39747906.
| duxup wrote:
| Going to be a long road with this kinda thing but forums and
| places I visit often already have "no AI submissions" type rules
| and they have been received pretty well that I've seen.
|
| Are they capable of enforcing it? I don't know, but it's clear
| users understand / don't like the idea of being awash in a sea of
| AI content at this point.
|
| If they can actually avoid it remains to be seen.
| asciimov wrote:
| Will this cover all those product "review" videos that are
| clearly reading some copy or amazon reviews?
| dmje wrote:
| I suspect it'll get me downvoted but this newish trend of using
| this grammar syntax drives me nuts. It's "YouTube now requires
| YOU to" not "YouTube now requires to". It's lazy, it's
| grammatically incorrect and it doesn't scan.
| dwighttk wrote:
| Title seems to be missing "creators"
| elif wrote:
| based on how it takes them 48+ hours to take down fake elon musk
| crypto doubling scams that get reported, i doubt this will help
| anyone.
| idatum wrote:
| > Altering footage of real events or places: Such as making it
| appear as if a real building caught fire, or altering a real
| cityscape to make it appear different than in reality.
|
| What about the picture you see before clicking on the actual
| video? This article of course is addressing the content of the
| videos, but I can't help but look at the comically cartoonish,
| overly dramatic -- clickbait -- picture preview of the video.
|
| For example, there is a video about a tornado that passed close
| to a content author and the author posts video captured by their
| phone. In the preview image, you see the author "literally
| getting sucked into a tornado". Is that "altered and synthetic
| content"?
| NoPicklez wrote:
| I don't think they need to be treated the same.
|
| The thumbnail isn't the content itself necessarily.
| cdrini wrote:
| Yeah I agree; and it's generally a bit harder to communicate
| _too_ much misinformation in a thumbnail.
| Devasta wrote:
| I hope this allows me to filter them entirely. If it wasn't worth
| your time creating it, its not worth my time looking at it.
|
| I am generally very skeptical of these tags though, I suspect a
| lot of them are in place to stop an AI consuming its own output
| rather than any concern for the end user.
| munificent wrote:
| _> If it wasn 't worth your time creating it, its not worth my
| time looking at it._
|
| God, I wish I could beam this sentence directly into the brain
| of every single person breathlessly excited about using gen AI
| to be "a creative".
| danlugo92 wrote:
| The fact that it cannot self-feed will take care of this
| anyways.
| sumedh wrote:
| > If it wasn't worth your time creating it
|
| Once something like Sora is available to the public, its going
| to be game over. A new bunch of creators will use it to
| "create" videos and I am sure you will change your mind then.
| Devasta wrote:
| "Game over".
|
| Typical, people who don't want their feeds filled with AI
| generated pigswill are to be defeated, not persuaded.
| paul7986 wrote:
| All websites and all for profit AI companies must add and then
| display AI watermarks otherwise nothing can truly believed online
| and offline too
| thomastjeffery wrote:
| It's as if everyone in the world just forgot that fraud has been
| illegal the whole time.
| paulddraper wrote:
| Fraud is a very specific thing.
|
| Namely it requires payment under false pretense
| lawlessone wrote:
| So how do I report the ones that don't?
|
| I have a whole lot of shorts content to report..
| RyEgswuCsn wrote:
| This is somewhat expected to be honest. I am rather pessimistic
| on the future solutions to such issues though. I can see only one
| possibility going forward: camera sensor manufactures will either
| voluntarily or forcibly implement hardware that inject
| cryptographic "watermarks" to the videos produced by their
| cameras. Any videos that do no bear valid watermarks are
| considered potentially "compromised" by GenAI.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| This will just result in a pop-up before every video, like the
| cookie warnings, "Viewers should be aware that this video may
| contain AI-generated or AI-enhanced images." And it'll be so
| annoying...
| omoikane wrote:
| > Creators must disclose content that [...] Generates a
| realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur
|
| This may spoil the fun in some 3D rendered scenes. For example, I
| remember there was much discussion on whether a robot throwing a
| bowling ball was real or not[1].
|
| Part of the problem has to do with all the original tags (e.g.
| "#rendering3d") being lost when the video spread through various
| platforms. The same problem will happen with Youtube -- creators
| may disclose everything, but after a few rounds through reddit
| and back, whatever disclosure and credit that was in the original
| video will be lost.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1146431221876105216
|
| https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1147870621713543168
| brikym wrote:
| YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made
| using AI *
|
| * Unless you're a powerful state actor then your videos are
| always 'real'.
| whoopdedo wrote:
| I'd like a content ID system for AI generated media. If someone
| tries to pass an image to me as authentic I can check its hash
| against a database that will say "this was generated by such-and-
| such LLM on 18 Mar 2024." Maybe even add a country of origin.
| zhoujianfu wrote:
| These guys are doing something sort of in that vein..
| https://wolfsbane.ai/
| meindnoch wrote:
| Or else?
| twodave wrote:
| I've said before that we're entering an age where no online
| material is truly verifiable without some kind of hardware
| signing (and even that has its flaws). Public figures will have
| to sort out this quagmire before things get even uglier than they
| are. And I really hope that's the biggest problem of the next
| decade or so, rather than that we achieved AGI and it decided we
| were inferior.
| danlugo92 wrote:
| I guess the first AGI will not be connected to anything thus it
| will be shut down right away if it wants to kill us?
|
| I think...
| airspresso wrote:
| No mention of clearly labeling ads made using AI. The deepfake
| Youtube ads are so annoying. Elon wants to recruit me to his new
| investment plot? Yeah right.
| stevage wrote:
| I predict that this kind of labelling will disappear before long
| and in a couple of years will look ridiculous.
| micheljansen wrote:
| The cynic in me thinks this is just Google protecting their
| precious training data from getting tainted but I'm glad their
| goals align with what's better for consumers for once.
| sheepscreek wrote:
| While their intentions are good, the solution isn't. There's a
| lot that they have left to the subjectivity of the creators.
| Especially for what is "clearly unrealistic".
| scotty79 wrote:
| This label will be mostly misleading. Absence of the tag will
| give false sense of veracity and presence of it on non-ai
| generated materials will discredit them.
|
| Fact checking box like on twitter would be better and if you
| can't provide it, don't pretend you know anything about the
| content.
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| "Requires". It will rely on the honor system, which sleazy
| assholes won't honor; or the report system, which people will
| abuse. AI detectors aren't reliable; GenAI is basically
| tautologically defined as hard/impossible to detect and we keep
| getting reminded that "it will only get better".
|
| Everyone calls this a problem, but it's a predicament because _it
| has NO solution_ , and I have nothing but contempt for everyone
| who made it reality.
| primeradical wrote:
| Does YouTube know that the Google Photos team actively encourages
| altering your videos and photographs to represent scenes that
| never happened?
|
| https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-features-p...
| https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-magic-edit...
| codedokode wrote:
| And what if someone doesn't label the video? What if someone has
| drawn a fake video in Photoshop? The whole requirement to label
| AI-generated videos is dumb. Typical decision from some old
| politician who doesn't understand anything in AI or video editing
| and who should have retired 20 years ago instead of making such
| dumb rules.
|
| Why movies are not labeled but AI video must be labeled? What
| about comedians impersonating politicians?
|
| If Google or govt is afraid that someone will use AI-generated
| videos for bad purposes (e.g. to display a candidate saying
| things that he never said) then they should display a warning
| above every video to educate people. And popular messengers like
| Telegram or video players must do the same.
|
| At least add a warning above every political and news videos.
| blobbers wrote:
| Well, that's reassuring that youtube can't tell on its own /s.
| barfbagginus wrote:
| Actually love AI content! Been a member of the Cursed AI group on
| Facebook, and now non-AI images just look boring to me!
|
| So this announcement begs the question: is there any way to
| search for just AI content?
| Joel_Mckay wrote:
| Or more likely, google wants a labeled dataset to improve their
| own training projects.
|
| =)
| ziofill wrote:
| Rather than tagging what's made up, why not tag what's genuine?
| There's gonna be less of it than the endless mountain of
| generated stuff.
|
| I'm thinking something as simple as a digital signature that
| certifies e.g. a photo was made with my phone if I want to prove
| it, or if someone edits my file there should be a way of keeping
| track of the chain of trust.
| asadalt wrote:
| yeah expect this to flip. i am guessing this will go like
| "https" path. first we will saw green lock for https enabled
| sites, later we saw insecure for http sites.
| cdrini wrote:
| This would I think be the ideal if it's possible. I'd love
| videos to have signatures that prove when it was recorded, that
| it was recorded from so and so a phone, that it hasn't had any
| modification, and maybe even optionally the GPS location (for
| like news organisations, to even more reliabily prove the
| validity of their media). And then have a way to have a video
| format that can allow certain modifications (eg colour
| grading), but encode that some aesthetic changes were made.
| And, more importantly, a way to denote that a region of video
| is a clip of a another video, and provide a backing signature
| for the validity of the clip.
|
| That would allow a much strong verifiability of media. But I'm
| not sure if that would be possible...
| creatonez wrote:
| Any links to videos that currently have this status?
| bandrami wrote:
| This has definite RFC 3514 energy
| cottsak wrote:
| > Risks of not disclosing
|
| > It can be misleading if viewers think a video is real, when
| it's actually been meaningfully altered or synthetically
| generated to seem realistic.
|
| > When content is undisclosed, in some cases YouTube may take
| action to reduce the risk of harm to viewers by proactively
| applying a label that creators will not have the option to
| remove. Additionally, creators who consistently choose not to
| disclose this information may be subject to penalties from
| YouTube, including removal of content or suspension from the
| YouTube Partner Program.
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491
|
| This is censorship. That's all.
| dorkwood wrote:
| This isn't fair. If I make a video using AI, who is to say
| whether it's anymore real than a video taken with a camera? You
| think what a camera captures is reality?
| NoPicklez wrote:
| After reading it I think it's a good approach, whilst not perfect
| it's a good step.
|
| Interestingly it isn't just referring to AI but also "other
| tools", used to make content that is "altered, synthetic and
| seems real".
|
| Fair amount of ambiguity in there but I see what they're getting
| at when it comes to the bigger fish like the president being
| altered to say something they didn't.
| acituan wrote:
| It might take 50 years to awaken to the abuse of power going on
| here.
|
| Forget individual videos for a second and look at youtube-the-
| experience as a whole. The recommendation stream is the single
| most important "generative AI" going on ever, using the _sense_
| of authenticity, curiosity and salience that comes from the
| individual videos themselves, but stitching them together in a
| very particular way. All the while the experience of being
| recommended videos being almost completely invisible. Of course
| this is psychologically "satisfying" to the users - in the
| shortest term - because they keep coming back, to the point of
| addiction. (Especially as features like shorts creep in).
|
| Allowing the well of "interesting, warm, authentic audio & videos
| having the secondary gains of working on your psychological
| needs" being tainted with the _question_ of generated content is
| a game changer because it _breaks the wall of authenticity_ for
| the entire app. It brings the whole youtube-the-experience into
| question, it reduces its psychological stand-in function for
| human voice & likeness, band-aiding the hyper-individualized
| lonely person's suffering based content consumption habits. I
| know this is a bit dramatic, and for sure videos can be genuinely
| informative, but let's be honest, neither that is the entirety of
| your stream, nor that is the experience for the vast majority of
| the users. It will get worse as long as there is a mathematical
| headroom of making more money out of making it worse, that's what
| the shareholder duty is about.
|
| When gen-AI came about I was naively happy about the fake
| "authenticity" wall of the recommended streams breaking down
| thanks to the garbage of generated sophistry overtaking and
| grossing out the users. Kind of like super delicious looking
| cakes turning out to be made of kitchen sponges turning people
| off of cakes all together. I was wrong to think AI oligopoly
| would let the opportunity of having a chokehold on the entire
| "content" business, and here we are. (Also this voluntary tagging
| will give them the perfect live training set, on top of what they
| have.)
|
| Once the tech is good enough to generate video streams on the
| fly, so that all you need is a single livestream, that you won't
| even have a recommendation engine of videos and instead a team of
| virtual personas doing everything you could ever desire on
| screen, it is game over. It might already be game over.
|
| To get out of this the single most important legislative maneuver
| is being able to accept and enforce the facts that a)
| _recommendation is speech_ b) recommendation is also gen-AI, and
| should be subject to same level of regulatory scrutiny. I don 't
| care if it generates pixels or characters at a time, or slaps
| together the most "interesting" subset of
| videos/posts/users/reels/shorts out of the vast sea of the
| collective content-consciousness, they are just one level of
| abstraction apart but functionally one and the same: look at me;
| look at my ads; come back to me; keep looking at me.
| armatav wrote:
| collecting training data
| Tioka001 wrote:
| Not bad? it helps users distinguish between reality and
| virtuality, the world is becoming more virtual though...
| bhasi wrote:
| How do they plan to enforce this?
| TobTobXX wrote:
| TikTok added the same switch a few days ago.
| IlPeach wrote:
| Oh that's great so we can finally train AI on what human
| generated content is Vs content to discard.
| romanovcode wrote:
| It would be amazing if users could opt-out of any videos that use
| AI content. The whole short-form farm is incredibly annoying to
| sift through.
| pompino wrote:
| >in the future we'll look at enforcement measures for creators
| who consistently choose not to disclose this information.
|
| Nothing of use here. As per the usual MO of tech companies they
| throw the responsibility back on the user. Sounds like yet
| another bullshit clause that they can invoke when they want to
| cancel you.
| zuppy wrote:
| call me cynic but i share the same thought. plus... unless we
| figure out a way to detect it, which we can't reliably do now
| at scale, this will be pretty useless. the ones who want to use
| it for profit will do whatever it takes, just the honest people
| will label it. i believe that this is even worse than to assume
| that everything is ai generated, as people without technical
| knowledge will trust that the labeling works.
| unwind wrote:
| Meta: the word "creators" is sorely missing from the title, it
| should read something like "[...] now requires creators to label
| [...]"
| astro- wrote:
| I'm wondering whether another motivation for this could be trying
| to keep the data set as clean as possible for future model
| training.
|
| Creating videos takes quite a bit of time. If AI video generation
| becomes widely available, pretty soon, there could be more AI
| content being uploaded to YouTube than human-made stuff.
|
| Presumably, training on AI generated stuff magnifies any
| artefacts/hallucinations present in the training set, reducing
| the quality of the model.
| sylware wrote:
| A quiet feature of sora: It can base itself on an existing
| footage for modifications of this very footage....
| cseleborg wrote:
| This is interesting because it highlights the trust we've always
| placed in real-looking images. It brings real-looking images down
| to the same level as text.
|
| It's always been possible to write fake news. We've never had to
| add disclaimers at the top of textual content, e.g. "This text is
| made to sound like it describes real events, but contains
| invented and/or inaccurate facts." We feel the need to add this
| to video because until now, if it looked real, it probably was
| (of course, "creative" editing has existed for a long time, but
| that's still comparatively easy to spot).
|
| It's the end of a media era, really.
| Loughla wrote:
| >We've never had to add disclaimers at the top of textual
| content, e.g. "This text is made to sound like it describes
| real events, but contains invented and/or inaccurate facts."
|
| I mean, yes we have?
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclai...
| opentokix wrote:
| How else is google able to train their competitor if they don't
| know if the video they are training on is real or not.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Will be meaningless within 3 years. The tide is clear and 50% of
| all pixels created will be traveling through these models by
| then.
|
| It's obvious this tech will replace all vfx, lots of elements of
| a camera pipeline and eventually even video game rendering.
|
| The labelling will become to common it will mean nothing.
| electrondood wrote:
| In an US election year when stakes are high, it's concerning that
| not every platform has a similar policy in place, now.
| slowhadoken wrote:
| "requires"
| montag wrote:
| s/requires to/requires creators to/
| dev1ycan wrote:
| They're all garbage I'm tired of falling asleep and waking up to
| some ripped off youtube video that was altered with AI, often of
| large science channels, or the Elon Musk videos
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-19 23:01 UTC)