It's as if everyone in the world just forgot that fraud has been illegal the whole time.
YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
181–190 of 517 posts
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#182So how do I report the ones that don't?
I have a whole lot of shorts content to report..
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Prop 65 is also way too broad. It needs to be specific about what carcinogens you’re being exposed to and not just “it’s a parking garage and this is our legally mandated sign”
As of 2016 companies are required to list the specific chemical and how to avoid or minimize exposure.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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”
The weird thing is, it’s not a bug of software, it’s a limitation.
The software is working as designed, statistics are just imperfect
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#185Earlier 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?
You may be interested in the Content Authenticity Initiative’s Content Credentials. The idea seems to be to keep a more-or-less-tamperproof provenance of changes to an image from the moment the light hits the camera’s sensor.
It sounds like the idea is to normalize the use of such an attribution trail in the media industry, so that eventually audiences could start to be suspicious of images lacking attribution.
Adobe in particular seems to be interested in making GenAI-enabled features of its tools automatically apply a Content Credential indicating their use, and in making it easier to keep the content attribution metadata than to strip it out.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#186I 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…
To me it sounds pretty damning. "The tool hallucinates" makes me think it's completely out of touch with reality, spouting nonsense. While "It has made a mistake, it is factually incorrect" would apply to many of my comments if taken very literally.
Webster definition: "a sensory perception (such as a visual image or a sound) that occurs in the absence of an actual external stimulus and usually arises from neurological disturbance (such as that associated with delirium tremens, schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, or narcolepsy) or in response to drugs (such as LSD or phencyclidine)".
I would fire with prejudice any marketing department that associated our product with "delirium tremens, schizophrenia, [...] LSD or phencyclidine".
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#187AI 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…
Forgive me on an initial reading, it is hard to have a nuanced discussion on this stuff without coming off like an uncaring caricature of one of two stereotypes, or look like you're attacking your interlocutor. When I'm writing these out, it's free association like I'm writing a diary entry, not as a critique of your well-reasoned and 100% accurate take. Personal thoughts: - we're already a year past the point where…
I like the outlook you build through your observations, and I acknowledge the possible conclusion you arrive at as plausible. I do, however, put a heavier weight on your first point because I see what we have today in terms of image/video generation as very rudimentary compared to what we'll have in a couple years. A day's worth of work for a 100% convincing, AI-generated video immune to the most advanced forensics? We'll soon have it instantaneously.
Thank you for the preface you wrote, I completely understand your point of how easy it is to sound like a contrarian online, I'm sure my writing style doesn't help much on that front I'm afraid to admit.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#188They don't bother to mention it, but this is actually to comply with the the new EU AI act. > Providers will also have to ensure that AI-generated content is identifiable. Besides, AI-generated text published with the purpose to inform the public on matters of public interest must be labelled as artificially generated. This also applies to audio and video content constituting deep fakes https://digital-strategy.ec.eu…
Is anyone else worried about how naive this policy is?
The solution here is for important institutions to get onboard with the public key infrastructure, and start signing anything they want to certify as authentic.
The culture needs to shift from assuming video and pictures are real, to assuming they are made the easiest way possible. A signature means the signer wants you to know the content is theirs, nothing else.
It doesn't help to train people to live in a pretend world where fake content always has a warning sticker.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#189I 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…
I don't get this at all. "Hallucinate" to me only can mean "produce false information". I've only ever seen it used perjoratively re: AI, and I don't understand what it covers up- how else are people interpreting it? I could see the point if you were saying that it implies sentience that isn't there, but your analogy to a restaurant implies that's not what you're getting at.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#190Earlier 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.
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'.
> 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.
It isn't a rule against lying, it's a rule requiring lies to be labeled. From which you get nothing useful that you couldn't get from a rule against lying, because you'd need the same proof for either one.
Meanwhile it becomes a trap for the unwary because innocent people who don't understand the complicated labeling rules get stomped by the system without intending any malice.
> Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have laws at all, because people will break them and lie about it'.
The generalization is that laws against not disclosing crimes are pointless because the penalty for the crime is already at least as severe as the penalty for not disclosing it and you'd need to prove the crime to prove the omission. This is, for example, why it makes sense to have a right against self-incrimination.