Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 517 posts

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#31

Post by the_duke »

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

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#32

Post by dotancohen »

dotnet00 wrote: post #20

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…

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.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#33

Post by dylan604 »

_trampeltier wrote: post #9

So beauty filters are ok, but what's the true difference between a strong beauty filter and a face change.

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

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#34

Post by summerlight »

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

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#35

Post by pixelcloud »

fortran77 wrote: post #15

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 ne…

They don't make a distinction between AI generated and VFX. This is contained within the linked article.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#36

Post by Aardwolf »

summerlight wrote: post #34

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 * Pro…

> Synthetically generating music (including music generated using Creator Music)

What about music made with a synthesizer?

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#37

Post by jjcm »

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.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#38

Post by skybrian »

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.

Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI

#39

Post by dylan604 »

nosvince wrote: post #17
sigmoid10 wrote: post #3

>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.

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...

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.

Post reply on HN