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

201–210 of 517 posts

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

#201

Post by oaktowner »

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…

I can't stand it being called "hallucinating" because it anthropomorphizes the technology. This isn't a conciousness that is "seeing" things that don't exist: it's a word generator that is generating words that don't make sense (not in a syntactic sense, but in a semantic sense).

Calling it "hallucination" implies that there are (other) moments when it is understanding the world correctly -- and that itself is not true. At those moments, it is a word generator that is generating words that DO make sense.

At no point is this a conciousness, and anthropomorphizing it gives the impression that it is one.

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

#202

Post by nomel »

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…

For something like YouTube, you could have the video's progress bar be a different color for the AI sections. Maybe three: real, unknown, AI. Without an "unknown" type tag, you wouldn't be able to safely use clips.

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

#203

Post by programjames »

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…

I think people are much more conservative with their health than text generation. If the text looks funky, you can just try regenerating it, or write it yourself and have only lost a few minutes. If your health starts looking funky, you're kind of screwed.

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

#204

Post by AnthonyMouse »

lucianbr wrote: post #200
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…

> 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…

> The thing is, they can't host you as they like, if you're breaking this rule.

Except that the rule can be satisfied just by labeling it, and if there are penalties for not labeling but no penalties for labeling then the obvious incentive is to stick the label on everything just in case, causing it to become meaningless.

To prevent that would require prohibiting the label from being applied to things that aren't AI-generated, which is impracticable because now you need 100% accuracy and there is no way to err on the side of caution, but nobody has 100% accuracy. So then the solution would be to actually make everything AI-generated, e.g. by systematically running it through some subtle AI filter, and then you can get back to labeling everything to avoid liability.

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

#205

Post by nomel »

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.

Most consumer cameras require access menus to enable raw because dealing with RAW is a truly terrible user experience. The vast majority of image/video sensors out there don't even support raw recordings, out of the box.

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

#206

Post by IshKebab »

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).

It's definitely not marketing. It has been in use for a lot longer than LLMs existed.

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

#207

Post by MBCook »

katbyte wrote: post #136
schoen wrote: post #114

Earlier 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…

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-...

Beat me to it!

As a non-Californian I’m used to them from the little stickers on seemingly every electronics cable that comes with something I buy.

But from listening to that episode when it came out it sounds like it really has helped a lot, even if it’s also become kind of obnoxious.

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

#208

Post by MBCook »

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…

That’s what I was thinking. Why don’t we just ask all scam videos to label themselves as scams while we’re at it?

It’s nice honest users will do that but they’re not really the problem are they.

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

#209

Post by Karellen »

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…

What if a real person reads a script that was created with an LLM? Does that count? Should it?

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

#210

Post by nomel »

DylanDmitri wrote: post #48
nosvince wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and many have done exactly the same kind of video using VFX. What's the difference? These kind of reactions remind me of the stories of the backlash following the introduction of calculators in schools...

Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved. VFX requires more expertise to do convincingly and realistically, in the thousands of hours of experience. More involved scenes require multiple professionals. The tooling and assets costs more. An inexperienced person, in a hundred hours of effort, can put out 10ish realistic scenes with leading edge AI tools, when previously they could do 0. This is like regulating h…

> Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved.

This really depends on what you're doing. There are some great Cinema 4d plugins out there. As the plethora of YouTube tutorials out there clearly demonstrate, multiple professionals, and vast experience, are not required for some of the things they have listed. Tooling and assets costs are 0, in the high seas.

Until Sora is widely available, or the open source models catch up, at this moment it's easier to use something like Cinema 4d than AI.

Post reply on HN