91–100 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…
Ofc. they don't mention it for big tech companies EU = Evil
These rules have really nothing to do with AI. They're trying to impose a ban on deceit.
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.
RIAA has entered the chat.
Is there a word missing from the title here? Requires whom?
These rules have really nothing to do with AI. They're trying to impose a ban on deceit.
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.
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?
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…
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/...
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.
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.
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.)
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/