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

151–160 of 517 posts

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

#151

Post by dartos »

IshKebab wrote: post #142
lp0_on_fire wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nonsense. It isn't marketing speak to cover for anything. It's a pretty good description of what is happening. The reason models hallucinate is because we train them to produce linguistically plausible output, which usually overlaps well with factually correct output (because it wouldn't be plausible to say e.g. "Barack Obama is white"). But when there isn't much data to show that something that is totally made up is…

"Hallucinate" is definitely marketing.

it translates to "Creates text which contains incorrect or invalid information"

The latter just doesn't sound as good in headlines/articles/tutorials (eg. marketing material).

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

#152

Post by anigbrowl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #65
jjcm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The AI tags are fundamentally useless. The premise is that it would prevent someone from misleading you by thinking that something happened when it didn't, but someone who wants to do that would just not tag it then. 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 p…

Not convinced by this. Camera sensors have measurable individual noise, if you record RAW that won't be fakeable without prior access to the device. You'd have a straightforward case for defamation if your real footage were falsely labeled, and it would be easy to demonstrate in court.

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

#153

Post by Devasta »

I hope this allows me to filter them entirely. If it wasn't worth your time creating it, its not worth my time looking at it.

I am generally very skeptical of these tags though, I suspect a lot of them are in place to stop an AI consuming its own output rather than any concern for the end user.

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

#154

Post by makeitdouble »

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…

You put prop 65 as backfiring, but it looks to me like the original intent was reducing toxic products in tap water for instance and it largely achieved that goal.

From there warnings proliferated on so many more products, but getting told that chocolate bars can cause cancer is still a reasonable tradeoff. Especially as nothing is stopping the law from getting tweaked from there.

Comparing it to prop 65 or GDPR makes it look like a probably deeply effective, yes slightly annoying rule...I sure hope that's what we end up with.

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

#155

Post by ipaddr »

dotnet00 wrote: post #59
dheera wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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…

There are many cases where such content is perfectly fine. After all, YouTube doesn't claim to be a place devoted to non-fiction only. The first one is an especially common thing in fiction.

Does that mean movies clips will need to be labeled?

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

#156

Post by AnthonyMouse »

speff wrote: post #150
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sup…

Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is l…

> Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule.

They use (with some irony) AI and other algorithms to determine if you're breaking the rules, often leading to arbitrary or nonsensical results, which the review process frequently fails to address.

> I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem.

It isn't a different problem, it's the problem. You want people to label things because otherwise you're not sure, but because of that problem exactly, you have no way of reliably or objectively enforcing the labeling requirement. And you specifically have no way to do it in the cases where it most matters because it's hard to tell.

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

#157

Post by anigbrowl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #78
speff wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From your comment's tone, it seems like this is supposed to be a bad thing. The only people who would be upset about this are folks who are trying to pass generated content off as real. I'm sorry if I don't have much sympathy for them.

"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.

They can, but it's often possible to prove it later. If you have a rule against lying and it's retroactively discovered to have been broken, then you already have the enforcement mechanism in place.

Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have laws at all, because people will break them and lie about it'.

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

#158

Post by jcalx »

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.)

This will make AI the new sesame allergen [1] — if you aren't 100% certain every asset you use isn't AI-generated, then it makes sense to stick some AI-generated content in and label the video accordingly, out of compliance.

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/08/30/1196640...

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

#159

Post by yaomingite »

aodonnell2536 wrote: post #108
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 may be a good thing, as it could teach the public some skills for identifying whether or not content has been AI generated. Eventually, it may be completely indiscernible, but we aren’t there yet

AI can already create photo-realistic images, and the old "look at the hands" rule doesn't really work on images generated with modern models.

There may be a few tells still, but those won't last long, and the moment someone can find a new pattern you can make that a negative prompt for new images to avoid repeating the same mistake.

I think we are already there, and it seems like we aren't because many people are using free low-quality models with a low number of steps because its more accessible.

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

#160

Post by wolpoli »

bgirard wrote: post #107
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.)

> To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. I think for it to be effective you'd have to require them to provide an itemized list of WHAT is AI generated. Otherwise what if a content creator has a GenAI logo or feature that's in every video and put a lazy disclaimer. > (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in compliance with AI not…

Yes, AI could have been used anywhere in the production pipeline: AI could be in the script, could be used in the stock photo or video, and more.
Post reply on HN