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

351–360 of 517 posts

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

#351

Post by makeitdouble »

MBCook wrote: post #208
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…

That’s what I was thinking. Why don’t we just ask all scam videos to label themselves as scams while we’re at it? It’s nice honest users will do that but they’re not really the problem are they.

> Why don’t we just ask all scam videos to label themselves as scams while we’re at it?

We do, we ask paid endorsements to be disclaimed.

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

#352

Post by cottsak »

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…

agreed! this is another censorship tool.

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

#353

Post by nonethewiser »

Barrin92 wrote: post #344
nonethewiser wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>but trying to centralize critical thinking will have far more disastrous results No. Having sources of trust is the basis of managing complexity. When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether its healthy right? You trust the medicine you buy contains exactly what is says on the label and didn't take a chemistry class. That's centralized trust. You rely…

> Having sources of trust is the basis of managing complexity.

This is a false equivalence that I’ve already addressed.

> When you turned the tap water on and bought a piece of meat at the butcher you didn't yourself verify whether its healthy right?

To a degree, yeah, you do check. Especially when you get it from somewhere with prior problems. And if you see something off you check further and adjust accordingly.

Why resort to anology? Should we blindly trust YouTube to judge whats true or not? I stated that labeling videos is fine but what’s not fine is blindly trusting it.

Additionally, comparing to meat dispenses with all the controversy because food safety is a comparatively objective standard.

Compare, “is this steak safe to eat or not?” To “is this speech safe to hear or not?”

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

#354

Post by cottsak »

> Risks of not disclosing

> It can be misleading if viewers think a video is real, when it's actually been meaningfully altered or synthetically generated to seem realistic.

> When content is undisclosed, in some cases YouTube may take action to reduce the risk of harm to viewers by proactively applying a label that creators will not have the option to remove. Additionally, creators who consistently choose not to disclose this information may be subject to penalties from YouTube, including removal of content or suspension from the YouTube Partner Program.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491

This is censorship. That's all.

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

#355

Post by exodust »

Lerc wrote: post #315
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…

> ...to her my voice is someone else.

To her, your voice is your voice not someone else's voice.

If you share a Youtube account with your wife, "someone else" means someone other than you or your wife.

The more interesting and troubling point is your use of "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better!

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

#356

Post by exodust »

rchaud wrote: post #90

Google of yore would have offered a 'not AI' type of filter in their advanced search. Present day Google is too busy selling AI shovels to quell Wall St's grumbling, to even consider what AI video will to do to the already bad 'needle in a haystack' nature of search.

A "not AI" filter is an excellent idea.

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

#357

Post by qbit42 »

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?

I am not sure how verifying that a photo was unaltered after capture from a camera if very useful though. You could just take a photo of a high-resolution display when an edited photo on it

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

#358

Post by dataflow »

qbit42 wrote: post #357
dataflow wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I am not sure how verifying that a photo was unaltered after capture from a camera if very useful though. You could just take a photo of a high-resolution display when an edited photo on it

That wouldn't look nearly realistic. And it would be significantly harder to achieve for most people anyway.

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

#359

Post by yosito »

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…

As someone who studied video production two decades ago, regarding the criteria you mentioned for AI:

- Makes a real person appear to say or do something they didn't say or do

- Alters footage of a real event or place

- Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur

These are things that have been true of edited video since even before AI was a thing. People can lie about reality with videos, and AI is just one of many tools to do so. So, as you said, there are many flaws with this approach, but I agree that requiring labels is at least a step in the right direction.

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

#360

Post by 8note »

dataflow wrote: post #348
johnny22 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woudln't that prevent most folks from being able to root their devices without making the camera lesser than everyone else's camera?

What does this have to do with root? The camera chip would be the one signing the data flowing through it, not the Android kernel.

If you do a jpeg compression, or crop the file, then does that signature matter anymore?
Post reply on HN