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

131–140 of 517 posts

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

#131

Post by gloosx »

strangescript wrote: post #21

This a pointless nearly unenforceable rule to make people feel better. Sure, if you generate something that seems like a real event that is provably false you can be caught, but anything mundane is not enforceable. Once models reach something like Sora 1.5 level of ability, we are kind of doomed on knowing whats real in video.

naah, there still will be certain patterns and they will be recognisable.

once something sora 1.5 level of ability is there – definitely reverse-sora model which can recognise ai-made videos should be possible to train as well

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

#132

Post by AnthonyMouse »

speff wrote: post #120
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 down…

You're acting like this is a court with a judge. The company makes up subjective rules and then subjectively enforces them. There was never any arguing to begin with, they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse.

> 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.

How is this supposed to lead to less arguing? If there was an easy way to tell if something is AI-generated then you wouldn't need the user to tag it. When there isn't, now you have to argue about whether it is or not -- or if it obviously is, whether it then has to be tagged, because it obviously is and they've given that as an exception.

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

#133

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

I love cookie popups, I get to reject all kinds of marketing and tracking cookies.

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

#134

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#135

Post by altairprime »

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…

Human beings regularly hallucinate details that aren’t real when asked to provide their memories of an event, and often don’t realize they’re doing it at all. So whole AI definitely is lacking in the “can assess fact versus fiction” department, that’s an overlapping problem with “invents things that aren’t actually real”. It can, today, hallucinate accurate and inaccurate information, but it can’t determine validity at all, so it’s sometimes wrong even when not hallucinating.

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

#136

Post by katbyte »

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…

While you may think it didn’t have an effect a recent 99pi episode covered it and it sounds like it has definitely motivated many companies to remove chemicals from their products.

It’s not perfect but it has had a positive effect https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/warning-this-podcast-...

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

#137

Post by nemomarx »

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.

I think the concern is people might use the label out of caution if Adobe has some automatic AI enhancement in your video editor or whatever?

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

#138

Post by ehsankia »

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.

That's a much clearer line though, it's much simpler to know if you were paid to create this content or not. Use of AI isn't, especially if it's deep in some tool you used.

Does blurring part of the image with Photoshop count? What if Photoshop used AI behind the scene for whatever filter you applied? What about some video editor feature that helps with audio/video synchronization or background removal?

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

#139

Post by samatman »

dheera wrote: post #50
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…

> * 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 Considering they own the platform, why not just ban this type of content…

The third one could easily be satire. Imagine that a politician is accused of stealing from the public purse, and issues a meme-worthy press statement denying it, and someone generates AI content of that politician claiming not to have stolen a car or something using a similar script.

Valid satire, fair use of the original content: parody is considered transformative. But it should be labeled as AI generated, or it's going to escape onto social media and cause havoc.

It might anyway, obviously. But that isn't a good reason to ban free expression here imho.

Post reply on HN