61–70 of 517 posts
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.eu…
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"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Synthetically generating music (including music generated using Creator Music) What about music made with a synthesizer?
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.
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.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/...
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…
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?
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.
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?
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).
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…
Yagoddabekidding. That could cover any piece of music created with MIDI sequencing and synthesizers and such.
These rules have really nothing to do with AI. They're trying to impose a ban on deceit.