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

111–120 of 517 posts

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

#111

Post by poszlem »

speff wrote: post #84
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

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.

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

#112

Post by nlehuen »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #83
ajross wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certain goods sold in the EU are required to have CE marking to affirm that they satisfy EU regulations.

+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...

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

#114

Post by schoen »

bombcar wrote: post #101
bgirard wrote: post #97

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 se…

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.)

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.

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

#115

Post by samstave »

bgirard wrote: post #97

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 se…

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...

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

#116

Post by bgdam »

apwell23 wrote: post #100
sylware wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I make good pay from that scam so screw EU trying to steal our wealth. How is this shit different that useless and annoying cookie popups.

So you making good pay by enabling a scammer makes it totally okay for the scammer to operate? By extension of that logic, hitmen should no longer be persecuted provided they make good pay from it.

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

#117

Post by frumper »

speff wrote: post #84
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

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.

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.

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

#119

Post by aeternum »

bombcar wrote: post #101
bgirard wrote: post #97

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 se…

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.)

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?

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

#120

Post by speff »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #110
speff wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

Post reply on HN