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

221–230 of 517 posts

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

#221

Post by RandallBrown »

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…

One of Neal Stephenson's more recent novels deals with this concept. Fake news becomes so bad that everyone starts singing everything they create.

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

#222

Post by ryandrake »

frays wrote: post #178
yoavz wrote: post #58

Most interesting example to me: "Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance". This seems oddly specific to the inverse of what happened recently with Alicia Keys from the recent Superbowl. As Robert Komaniecki pointed out on X [1], Alicia Keys hit a "sour note" which was silently edited by the NFL to fix it. [1] https://twitter.com/Komaniecki_R/status/1757…

This is a great example as a discussion point, thank you for sharing. I will be coming back to this video in several months time to check whether the "Altered or synthetic content" tag has actually been applied to it or not. If not, I will report it to YouTube.

Yea, it’s a really super example!

However autotune has existed for decades. Would it have been better if artists were required to label when they used autotune to correct their singing? I say yes but reasonable people can disagree!

I wonder if we are going to settle on an AI regime where it’s OK to use AI to deceptively make someone seem “better” but not to deceptively make someone seem “worse.” We are entering a wild decade.

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

#223

Post by mazlix »

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…

What if i use an LLM powered AI to operate VFX software to generate a realistic looking scene? ;)

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

#224

Post by paulddraper »

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.)

> To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present.

That already happens for foods.

The solution for suppliers is to intentionally add small quantities of allergens (sesame). [1] By having that as an actual ingredient, manufacturers don't have to worry about whether or not there is cross contamination while processing.

[1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/allergyimmunology/allergy/10652...

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

#225

Post by xp84 »

ryandrake wrote: post #163
ehsankia wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

This is depressing, we’re going to intentionally use worse tools to avoid some idiotic scare label. Basically the entire GMO or “artificial flavor” debates all over again.

If you edit this image by hand you’re good, but if you use a tool that “uses AI” to do it, you need to put the scare label on. Even if pixel-for-pixel both methods output the identical image! Just as a GMO/not GMO has no correlation to harmful compounds being in the food, and artificial flavors are generally more pure than those extracted from some wacky and more expensive means from a “natural” item.

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

#226

Post by whoopdedo »

I'd like a content ID system for AI generated media. If someone tries to pass an image to me as authentic I can check its hash against a database that will say "this was generated by such-and-such LLM on 18 Mar 2024." Maybe even add a country of origin.

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

#227

Post by supertrope »

strangescript wrote: post #21

This a pointless nearly unenforceable rule to make people feel better. Sure, if you generate something that seems like a real event that is provably false you can be caught, but anything mundane is not enforceable. Once models reach something like Sora 1.5 level of ability, we are kind of doomed on knowing whats real in video.

>This a pointless nearly unenforceable rule to make people feel better.

Pretty much. If Google says "Swiper no swiping" they can point at their policy when lobbying against regulations or pushing back against criticism.

Before surveillance capitalism became the norm, web services told users to not share personal information, and to not trust other users they had not met in real life.

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

#228

Post by sangnoir »

jjcm wrote: post #45
jjcm wrote: 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…

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?

I suspect we're headed into a world of attestation via cryptographically signed videos. If you're the sole witness, then you can reduce the trust in the event, however, if it's a major event, then we can fall back on existing news-gathering machinery to validate and counter your false tagging (e.g. if a BBC camera captured the event, or there is some other corroboration & fact checking).

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

#229

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

wolpoli wrote: post #160
bgirard wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The same is true for an asset's licensing/royalty-free status, which creators are surely aware of when pulling these things in.

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

#230

Post by pier25 »

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…

Thank you EU!
Post reply on HN