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

311–320 of 517 posts

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

#311

Post by randmeerkat »

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…

> Alters footage of a real event or place

I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument for reasonable doubt, with any electronic media now.

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

#312

Post by RandallBrown »

pixl97 wrote: post #256
RandallBrown wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I imagine it would be something handled pretty automatically for everyone.

If Apple wanted to sign every photo and document the iPhone they could probably make the whole user experience simple enough for most grandmas.

Some people will certainly give away their keys, just like bank accounts and social security numbers today, but those people probably aren't terribly concerned with proving the ownership of their online documents.

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

#313

Post by wpietri »

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…

I think doing this right goes the other direction. What we're going to end up with is a focus on provenance.

We already understand that with text. We know that to verify words, we have to trace it back to the source, and then we evaluate the credibility of the source.

There have been periods where recording technology ran ahead of faking technology, so we tended to just trust photos, audio, and video (even though they could always be used to paint misleading pictures). But that era is over. New technological tricks may push back the tide a little here and there, but mostly we're going to end up relying on, "Who says this is real, and why should we believe them?"

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

#314

Post by dataflow »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #293
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…

I worked in device attestation at Android. It’s not robust enough to put our understanding of reality in. Fine for preventing API abuse but that’s it.

> I worked in device attestation at Android. It’s not robust enough to put our understanding of reality in.

I don't follow. Isn't software backward compatibility a big reason why Android device attestation is so hard? For cameras, why can't the camera sensor output a digital signature of the sensor data along with the actual sensor data?

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

#315

Post by Lerc »

summerlight wrote: post #34

Looks like there is a huge grea area that they need to figure out in practice. From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491# : Examples of content creators don’t have to disclose: * Someone riding a unicorn through a fantastical world * Green screen used to depict someone floating in space * Color adjustment or lighting filters * Special effects filters, like adding background blur or vintage effects * Pro…

> * Voice cloning someone else’s voice to use it for voiceover

This is interesting because I was considering cloning my own voice as a way to record things without the inevitable hesitations, ums, errs, and stumbling over my words. By this standard I am allowed to do so.

But then I thought what does it even mean "someone else's" when multiple people can make a video, if my wife and I make a video together can we not then use my recorded voice because to her my voice is someone else.

I suspect all of these rules will have similar edge cases and a wide penumbra where arbitrary rulings will be autocratically applied.

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

#316

Post by fennecbutt »

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.

"Dealing with raw" is one of the major reasons to use an actual camera these days.

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

#317

Post by smt88 »

sangnoir wrote: post #228
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 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).

How does the signature help? It only proves that the video hasn't been altered since [timestamp]. It doesn't prove that it wasn't AI-generated or manipulated.

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

#318

Post by Eiim »

randmeerkat wrote: post #311
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…

> Alters footage of a real event or place I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument for reasonable doubt, with any electronic media now.

Bad evidence is not the same thing as inadmissible evidence. Evidence is admitted, and then the fact finder determines whether to consider it, and how much weight to give it. It is likely that surveillance video will be slightly less credible now, but can still be part of a large, convincing body of evidence.

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

#319

Post by smt88 »

tkiolp4 wrote: post #284
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…

Basically, Google decides what’s real and what’s not. Cool.

On their own platforms, yes. We need to break up their monopolies so that their choices don't matter as much.

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

#320

Post by teaearlgraycold »

dataflow wrote: post #314
teaearlgraycold wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked in device attestation at Android. It’s not robust enough to put our understanding of reality in. Fine for preventing API abuse but that’s it.

> I worked in device attestation at Android. It’s not robust enough to put our understanding of reality in. I don't follow. Isn't software backward compatibility a big reason why Android device attestation is so hard? For cameras, why can't the camera sensor output a digital signature of the sensor data along with the actual sensor data?

There's been a slow march to requiring hardware-backed security. I believe all new devices from the last couple of years need a TEE or a dedicated security chip.

At least with Android there are too many OEMs and they screw up too often. Bad actors will specifically seek out these devices, even if they're not very technically skilled. The skilled bad actors will 0-day the devices with the weakest security. For political reasons, even if a batch of a million devices are compromised it's hard to quickly ban them because that means those phones can no longer watch Netflix etc.

Post reply on HN