Or more likely, google wants a labeled dataset to improve their own training projects.
=)
YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
331–340 of 517 posts
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#332I hope this allows me to filter them entirely. If it wasn't worth your time creating it, its not worth my time looking at it. I am generally very skeptical of these tags though, I suspect a lot of them are in place to stop an AI consuming its own output rather than any concern for the end user.
> If it wasn't worth your time creating it, its not worth my time looking at it. God, I wish I could beam this sentence directly into the brain of every single person breathlessly excited about using gen AI to be "a creative".
The fact that it cannot self-feed will take care of this anyways.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#333Rather than tagging what’s made up, why not tag what’s genuine? There’s gonna be less of it than the endless mountain of generated stuff.
I’m thinking something as simple as a digital signature that certifies e.g. a photo was made with my phone if I want to prove it, or if someone edits my file there should be a way of keeping track of the chain of trust.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#334I've said before that we're entering an age where no online material is truly verifiable without some kind of hardware signing (and even that has its flaws). Public figures will have to sort out this quagmire before things get even uglier than they are. And I really hope that's the biggest problem of the next decade or so, rather than that we achieved AGI and it decided we were inferior.
I guess the first AGI will not be connected to anything thus it will be shut down right away if it wants to kill us?
I think...
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it is fully AI-generated, this requirement seems off compared to the other ones. In all of the other cases, it can be deceiving, but what is deceiving in synthetic music? There may be some cases where it is relevant, like when imitating the voice of a famous singer, but other than that, music is not "real", it is work coming from the imagination of its creator. That kind of thing is already dealt with with co…
From a Google/Alphabet perspective it could also be valuable to distinguish between „original“ and „ai generated“ music for the purpose of a cleaner database to train their own music generation models?
Alternatively they want to know who to ban when the RIAA inevitably starts suing the shit out of music generators.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#336Rather than tagging what’s made up, why not tag what’s genuine? There’s gonna be less of it than the endless mountain of generated stuff. I’m thinking something as simple as a digital signature that certifies e.g. a photo was made with my phone if I want to prove it, or if someone edits my file there should be a way of keeping track of the chain of trust.
yeah expect this to flip. i am guessing this will go like “https” path. first we will saw green lock for https enabled sites, later we saw insecure for http sites.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen > * Making it appear as if hospital workers turned away sick or wounded patients > * Depicting a public figure stealing something they did not steal, or admitting to stealing something when they did not make that admission Considering they own the platform, why not just ban this type of content…
The third one could easily be satire. Imagine that a politician is accused of stealing from the public purse, and issues a meme-worthy press statement denying it, and someone generates AI content of that politician claiming not to have stolen a car or something using a similar script. Valid satire, fair use of the original content: parody is considered transformative. But it should be labeled as AI generated, or it's…
For what it's worth, this is already a genre of YouTube video, and I happen to find it absolutely hilarious:
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#338I 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…
[deleted]
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#339Any links to videos that currently have this status?
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title was editorialized, which people do far more often than they should. The original title, with the domain name next to it, would have been fine.
Editorializing is fine, as long as it's done properly and the headline makes sense.
It is not, except under certain circumstances which this case does not meet.
> Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.