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

191–200 of 517 posts

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

#191

Post by lucianbr »

dartos wrote: post #151
IshKebab wrote: post #142

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).

So if I replied to your comment with "you are incorrect" I would be putting you in a worse light than saying "you are hallucinating"? The second is making it sound better? Doesn't feel that way to me.

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

#193

Post by bcrosby95 »

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…

> Would we tolerate such doublespeak it were anything else?

Yes: identity theft. My identity wasn't "stolen", what really happened was a company gave a bad loan.

But calling it identity theft shifts the blame. Now it's my job to keep my data "safe", not their job to make sure they're giving the right person the loan.

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

#194

Post by RyEgswuCsn »

This is somewhat expected to be honest. I am rather pessimistic on the future solutions to such issues though. I can see only one possibility going forward: camera sensor manufactures will either voluntarily or forcibly implement hardware that inject cryptographic "watermarks" to the videos produced by their cameras. Any videos that do no bear valid watermarks are considered potentially "compromised" by GenAI.

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

#195

Post by nonrandomstring »

speff wrote: post #70
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #46

These rules have really nothing to do with AI. They're trying to impose a ban on deceit.

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.

Won't it be equally problematic for creators, particularly reporters/journalists, whose real content is misidentified as fake?

This divide is obviously going to play out on two sides.

Proving authenticity may turn out to be as difficult as proving fakeness. People will use this maliciously to flag and censor content they dislike.

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

#198

Post by [deleted] »

alphazard wrote: post #188
the_duke wrote: post #31

They 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…

[deleted]

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

#199

Post by VelesDude »

anigbrowl wrote: post #152
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #65

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.

Unfortunately video codecs love to crush that fine detail.

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

#200

Post by lucianbr »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #132
speff wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sup…

> they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse.

The ban recourse problem is the opposite.

This is the "keep recourse": "this video is obviously bad, but google doesn't feel like taking it down, and there is nothing I can do about it". Now there is, and it can actually go to a court with a judge in the end, if Google is obstinate.

You didn't have a right to be hosted on Google before, and you don't have now. Of course they can ban you as they like. The thing is, they can't host you as they like, if you're breaking this rule.

Post reply on HN