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

Post by mr_toad » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 1:45 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #65

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?

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…

Post by Joehughes4041 » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 1:51 AM UTC

Post by bandrami » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 1:57 AM UTC

robertlagrant wrote: post #271

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by johnny22 » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 2:13 AM UTC

dataflow wrote: post #326

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politic…

But you don't have to ban them for this use case? You just need something opportunistic, not ironclad. An entity like Google could publish those devices' certificates as "we can't verify the integrity of these devices' cameras", and let the public deal with that information (or not) as they wish. Customers who care about proving integrity (e.g., the media) will seek the verifiable devices. Those who don't, won't. I c…

Post by surajrmal » Tue, Mar 19, 2024, 2:17 AM UTC

barfbagginus wrote: post #322

tkiolp4 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Don't worry Google has become incompetent - it is in the "Fading AOL" portion of its life cycle. Do you remember how incontinent AOL became in the final minutes before it became completely irrelevant? Sure it's taking longer with Google. But it's not a process that they can reverse. That means the system will be really really awful. So challengers can arise - maybe a challenger that YOU build, and open source!