Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.google

161–170 of 517 posts

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

#161
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…

I think the main way where the line will move is what is considered "realistic" and what is "animation".

A lot of early stable diffusion seemed "realistic" but comparing them to newer stuff makes them stand out at obviously AI generated and unrealistic.

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

#162
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.?…

You missed the analogy, so I'll spell it out: before we had cars[1], we couldn't go fast on roads, and there were no speed limit signs. Before we had AI, we couldn't deceive people with easy fakes, and so there was no need to regulate it. Now we do, and there is, and YouTube did. Trying to characterize this as not related to AI just isn't adding to the discussion. Clearly it is a response to the emergence of AI fakes…

Pedantic but, I hope, amusing: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/when-president-uly...

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Maybe this could motivate toolmakers to label their own products as “Uses AI” or “AI Free” allowing content creators verify their entire toolchain to be AI Free.

As opposed to today, where companies are doing everything they can, stretching the truth, just so they can market their tools as “Using AI.”

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

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Camera sensors have measurable individual noise, if you record RAW that won't be fakeable without prior access to the device.

Which doesn't help you unless non-AI images are all required to be RAW. Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a real camera to emulate.

> You'd have a straightforward case for defamation if your real footage were falsely labeled, and it would be easy to demonstrate in court.

Defamation typically requires you to prove that the person making the claim knew it was false. They'll, of course, claim that they thought it was actually fake. Also, most people don't have the resources to sue YouTube for their screw ups.

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

#165
post #114

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…

Indeed.

First time I was in CA, my then-partner's mother saw a Prop 65 notice and asked why they couldn't just ban the substances.

We were in a restaurant that served alcohol, one of the known substances is… alcoholic beverages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_list...

Banning that didn't work out so well the last time.

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

#166
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

We already have words for when a computer program produces unexpected/incorrect output: “defect” and “bug”

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

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DMCA abuse begs to differ.

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

#168
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is fine. 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.)

That could get tricky. A lot of hardware and software MIDI sequencers these days have probabilistic triggering built in, to introduce variation in drum loops, basslines, and so forth. An argument could be made that even if you programmed the sequence and all the sounds yourself, having any randomization or algorithmic elements would make the resulting work ineligible for copyright.

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

#169
post #37

I think it's smart to start trying things here. This has infinite flaws with it, but from a business and learnings standpoint it's a step toward the right direction. Over time we're going to both learn and decide what is and isn't important to designate as "AI" - Google's approach here at least breaks this into rules of what "AI" things are important to label: • Makes a real person appear to say or do something they…

I know people on HN love to hate on Google, but at least they're a major platform that's TRYING. Mistakes will be made, but let's at least attempt at moving forward.

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

#170
post #74

AI that is indistinguishable from reality is a certainty for the not-so-distant future. That future will come, and it will come sooner than anyone's expecting. Yet all I see is society trying to prevent the inevitable from installing itself (because it's "scary", "dangerous", "undermines the very pillars of society" etc.), instead of preparing itself for when the inevitable occurs. People seem to have finally accepte…

What sort of preparations do you recommend?

There's a saying in my local language that people usually say to someone who's going through a breakup or going through an unfair situation:

"Accept it, it hurts less".

I'm not saying it makes the actual situation any better; it obviously doesn't. But anyone can feel the rarefied AI panic in the air growing thicker by the minute, and panic will only make the situation worse both before and after absolute change takes place.

When we don't accept incoming change before it arrives, we surely are forced to accept it after it arrives, at a much higher price.

You asked about preparations: prepare yourself to see governments try (and fail) to regulate what processing power can be acquired by consumers. Prepare yourself for the serious proposal of "truth-checking agencies" with certified signatures that ensure "this content had its chain of custody verified as authentic from its CMOS capture up to its encoded video stream", in which a lot of time and effort will be wasted (there's already people replying about this, saying metadata and/or encryption will come to the rescue via private/public keys. Supposedly no will would ever film a screen!).

The above might seem an exaggeration, but ask yourself: the YouTube guidelines this post is about, the recent EU regulation... do you think those are enough? Of course they're not. They will keep trying to solve the problem from the wrong end until they are (we are) forced to accept there's nothing that can be done about it, and that it is us who need to adapt to live in such a world.

Enjoy the ride, I suppose.

Post reply on HN