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

301–310 of 517 posts

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

#301

Post by nonethewiser »

JohnFen wrote: post #239
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?

I fear that we're barrelling fast toward a future when nobody can trust anything at all anymore, label or not.

We have to expect people to think for themselves. People are flawed and will be deceived but trying to centralize critical thinking will have far more disastrous results. Its always been that way.

Im not saying Youtube shouldn’t have AI labels. Im saying we shouldn’t assume they’re reliable.

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

#302

Post by JadedBlueEyes »

ryandrake wrote: post #222
frays wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wil…

> I say yes but reasonable people can disagree!

A lot of people do! Tone correction [1] is a normal fact of life in the music industry, especially in recordings. Using it well takes both some degree of vocal skill and production skill. You'll often find that it's incredibly obvious when done poorly, but nearly unnoticeable when done well.

[1] AutoTune is a specific brand

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

#303

Post by CatWChainsaw »

"Requires". It will rely on the honor system, which sleazy assholes won't honor; or the report system, which people will abuse. AI detectors aren't reliable; GenAI is basically tautologically defined as hard/impossible to detect and we keep getting reminded that "it will only get better".

Everyone calls this a problem, but it's a predicament because it has NO solution, and I have nothing but contempt for everyone who made it reality.

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

#304

Post by anigbrowl »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #164
anigbrowl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Camera sensors have measurable individual noise, if you record RAW that won't be fakeable without prior access to the device. Which doesn't help you unless non-AI images are all required to be RAW. Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a real camera to emulate. > You'd have a straightforward case for defamation if your real footage were falsely labeled, and it would…

Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a real camera to emulate.

Yes, but not to your camera. Sorry for not phrasing it more clearly: individual cameras have measurable noise signatures distinct from otherwise identical models.

On the lawsuit side, you just need to aver that you are the author of the original footage and are willing to prove it. As long as you are in possession of both the device and the footage, you have two pieces of solid evidence vs. someone elses feels/half-assed AI detection algorithm. There will be no shortage of tech-savvy media lawyers willing to take this case on contingency.

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

#305

Post by primeradical »

Does YouTube know that the Google Photos team actively encourages altering your videos and photographs to represent scenes that never happened?

https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-features-p... https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-magic-edit...

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

#306

Post by anigbrowl »

nomel wrote: post #205
anigbrowl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anyone with a mid-to-upper range phone or better-than-entry level DSLR/bridge camera has access to this, and anyone who uses that camera to make a living (eg shooting footage of protests) understands how to use RAW. I have friends who are complete technophobes but have figured this out because they want to be able to sell their footage from time to time.

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

#307

Post by codedokode »

And what if someone doesn't label the video? What if someone has drawn a fake video in Photoshop? The whole requirement to label AI-generated videos is dumb. Typical decision from some old politician who doesn't understand anything in AI or video editing and who should have retired 20 years ago instead of making such dumb rules.

Why movies are not labeled but AI video must be labeled? What about comedians impersonating politicians?

If Google or govt is afraid that someone will use AI-generated videos for bad purposes (e.g. to display a candidate saying things that he never said) then they should display a warning above every video to educate people. And popular messengers like Telegram or video players must do the same.

At least add a warning above every political and news videos.

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

#308

Post by anigbrowl »

Gregaros wrote: post #167
anigbrowl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

DMCA abuse begs to differ.

That's because of safe harbor provisions, which don't exist in this context.

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

#309

Post by Aeolun »

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?

Having the tag weaponizes it by itself, because people will now consider any content without the tag real, whether it actually is or not.
Post reply on HN