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

271–280 of 517 posts

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

#271

Post by robertlagrant »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #237
mazlix wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have a bit backwards. If you want to publish pixels on a screen there should be no assumption that they represent real events. If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake. Also since no one likes RAW footage it…

> If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake. At which point nobody could verify anything that happened with any existing camera, including all past events as of today and all future events captured with any existing came…

I think at minimum YouTube could tag existing footage uploaded before 2015 as very unlikely to be AI generated.

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

#272

Post by post_break »

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…

Oh no, is that going to mess up my favorite genre called shreds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAhQOoJTIA

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

#274

Post by speff »

pixl97 wrote: post #269
speff wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is l…

>Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation At a mom and pop you could at least talk to a person and figure out what happen. >I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this" Did you not learn from the entire DMCA thing? Remember the thing where piles tech people warned "Wow, this is going to be used as a weapon to cause problems" and then it was used as a weapon to cause problems. Well, welcome to the next weapon that…

The DMCA implementation implemented is the only thing that saved youtube from getting sued out of existence. And people on the internet don't know what fair-use actually means, so they complain/exaggerate about DMCA takedowns when, surprise, it wasn't actually covered by fair-use.

There's a handful of cases where yt actually messed up w/ DMCA and considering the sheer volume of videos they process, I'd say it's actually pretty damn good.

So no, DMCA is not a valid reason to assume youtube will handle this improperly.

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

#275

Post by inferiorhuman »

dawnerd wrote: post #252
inferiorhuman wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There was a push to crack down on over labeling, but manufacturers have pushed back quite a bit.

https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/california-warni...

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

#276

Post by hnbad »

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…

Usually when a big corporation gleefully announces a change like this it's worth checking whether there's any regulations on that topic taking effect in the near future.

On a local level, I recall how various brands started making a big deal of replacing disposable plastic bags with canvas or paper alternatives "for the environment" just coincidentally a few months before disposable plastic bags were banned in the entire country.

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

#277

Post by uconnectlol »

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…

[flagged]

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

#278

Post by schoen »

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-...

Thanks, that's an interesting overview.

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

#280

Post by miki123211 »

mazlix wrote: post #213
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…

I think you have a bit backwards. If you want to publish pixels on a screen there should be no assumption that they represent real events. If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake. Also since no one likes RAW footage it…

> that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony etc. being "in on it" to fake

Or an APT (AKA advanced persistent teenager) with their parents camera and more time than they know what to do with.

Post reply on HN