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

251–260 of 517 posts

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

#251

Post by inferiorhuman »

MBCook wrote: post #207
katbyte wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

  seemingly every electronics cable
If it's something you've bought recently the offending ingredient should be listed. Otherwise, my money would be on lead being used as a plasticizer. Either way at least you have the tools to find out now.

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

#252

Post by dawnerd »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #183
dawnerd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have yet to see any of that in practice. Guessing no one is enforcing it.

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

#254

Post by jameshart »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #78
speff wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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.

Also, because telling fictional stories has always been one of the most common applications of video technology.

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

#255

Post by Fatnino »

schoen wrote: post #114
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.)

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…

The entire Stanford campus (which is much bigger than a typical university) has a prop 65 warning at the entrance.

898 Bowdoin St https://maps.app.goo.gl/uHTTd7yYtAibAg1QA

Some of the street view passes the sign is washed out. Click through to different times to see the sign.

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

#256

Post by pixl97 »

RandallBrown wrote: post #221
alphazard wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is about as realistic as the next generation of congress people ending up 40 years younger.

We literally have politicians talking about pouring acid on hardware and expect these same bumbleheads to keep their signing keys safe at the same time. The average person is far too technologically illiterate to do that. Next time you go to grandmas house you'll learn she traded her signing key for chocolate chip cookies.

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

#257

Post by yoavz »

elpocko wrote: post #220
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…

Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer hit a lot of notes is still fine though.

Correct, it's the inverse that requires disclosure by Youtube.

Still, I find it interesting. If you can't synthetically alter someone's performance to be "worse", is it OK that the NFL synthetically altered Alicia Key's performance to be "better"?

For a more consequential example, imagine Biden's marketing team "cleaning up" his speech after he has mumbled or trailed off a word, misleading the US public during an election year. Should that be disclosed?

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

#258

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#259

Post by russdill »

dotnet00 wrote: post #20

Without enforceability it'll go the same way as it has on Pixiv, the good actors will properly label their AI utilizing work, while the bad actors will continue to lie to try to maximize their audience until they get caught, then rinse and repeat. Kind of like crypto-scammers. For context, Pixiv had to deal with a massive wave of AI content being dumped onto the site by wannabe artists basically right as the initial…

I think one of the bigger issues will be false positives. You'll do an upload, and youtube will take it down claiming that some element was AI generated. You can appeal, but it'll get automatically rejected. So you have to rework your video and figure out what it thought might be AI generated and re-upload.

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

#260

Post by airspresso »

thwarted wrote: post #246
alphazard wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I see a lot of confusing authenticity with accuracy. Someone can sign the statement "Obama is white" but that doesn't make it a true statement. The use of PKI as part of showing provenance/chain of trust doesn't make any claims about the accuracy of what is signed. All it does is assert that a given identity signed something.

It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it and whether you trust that source. I want credible news outlets to start signing their content with a key I can verify as theirs. In that future all unsigned content is by definition fishy. PKI is the only way to implement trust in a digital realm.
Post reply on HN