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

Post by ajross » Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 7:11 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #94

ajross wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.?…

Post by dmje » Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 7:14 PM UTC

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 7:20 PM UTC

Jensson wrote: post #105

bombcar wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "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.

Post by dawnerd » Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 7:21 PM UTC

schoen wrote: post #114

bombcar wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Post by samatman » Mon, Mar 18, 2024, 7:22 PM UTC

lp0_on_fire wrote: post #121

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…

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 fr…