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

391–400 of 517 posts

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

#391

Post by rrr_oh_man »

exodust wrote: post #355
Lerc wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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!

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

Why?

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

#392

Post by dataflow »

chii wrote: post #390
dataflow wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you do it, only if the chip also gives you a signed JPEG. Cropping and other simple transformations aren't an issue, though, since you could just specify them in unsigned metadata, and people would be able to inspect what they're doing. Either way, just having a signed image from the sensor ought to be adequate for any case where the authenticity is more important than anesthetics. You share both the processed…

> You share both the processed version and the original, as proof that there's no misleading alteration so you cannot share the original if you intend to black out something from the original that you don't want revealed (e.g., a face or name or something). The way you specced out how a signed jpeg works means the raw data _must_ remain visible. There's gonna be unintended consequences from such a system. And it aint…

> The way you specced out how a signed jpeg works means the raw data _must_ remain visible. There's gonna be unintended consequences from such a system.

You can obviously extend this if you want to add bells and whistles like cropping or whatever. Like signing every NxN sub-block separately, or more fancy stuff if you really care. It should be obvious I'm not going to design in every feature you could possibly dream of in an HN comment...

And regardless, like I said: this whole thing is intended to be opportunistic. You use it when you can. When you can't, well, you explain why, or you don't. Ultimately it's always up to the beholder to decide whether to believe you, with or without proof.

> And it aint even that trustworthy - the signing key could potentially be stolen or coerced out, and fakes made.

I already addressed this: once you determine a particular camera model's signature ain't trustworthy, you publish it for the rest of the world to know.

> It's not a rock-solid proof - my benchmark for proof needs to be on par with blockchains'.

It's rock-solid enough for enough people. I can't guarantee I'll personally satisfy you, but you're going to be sorely disappointed when you realize what benchmarks courts currently use for assessing evidence tampering...

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

#393

Post by dang »

bgirard wrote: post #97

I 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…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39747906.

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

#396

Post by YetAnotherNick »

sverhagen wrote: post #380
lysp wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it also gives them a legal / business remedy if people fail to label their content. If someone for example makes a political video and fails to label it, they can delete the video/terminate the account for a breach of service.

Given the regular stories posted on HN about folks who've had some aspect of their social or other media canceled by any some SaaS company, are these companies having many (legal) qualms as it is about canceling people without providing a good reason for it? Would be nice if they did, though...

At the very least it wouldn't be bad for PR if Google bans someone for specifically breaking a clear TOS.

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

#397

Post by tsimionescu »

chii wrote: post #388
lysp wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it also gives them a legal / business remedy if people fail to label their content. If someone for example makes a political video and fails to label it, they can delete the video/terminate the account for a breach of service.

but this gives room to also abuse the uncertainty to censor anyone without recourse - by arguing such and such video is "AI" (true or not), they have a plausiblely deniable reason to remove a video. Power is power - can be used for good or bad. This labelling is a form of power.

This is no different from their existing power. They can already claim that a video contained copyright infringement, and you can only appeal that claim once, or try to sue Google.

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

#399

Post by tsimionescu »

eek2121 wrote: post #297
miki123211 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

also the three letter agencies (not just from the US) will have access to private keys of at least some manufacturers, allowing them to authenticate fake events and sow chaos by strategically leaking keys for cameras that recorded something they really don't like.

For all the folks that bash the United States for "reasons" this one gave me a chuckle. Our handling of privacy and data and such is absolute ass, but at least we *can* hide our data from big government with little repercussion in most cases (translation: you aren't actively being investigated for a crime that a judge isn't aware of) Of course that says nothing about the issues of corruption of judges in the court sy…

> We should have been working together 60 years ago for a viable off-planet colony and related stuff. If the world ended tomorrow, humanity would cease to exist. You need over 100,000 people to sustain the human race in the event a catastrophic event wipes almost everyone out.

We are hundreds of years away from the kind of technology you would need for a viable fully self-sustainable off-world colony that houses 100k or more humans. We couldn't even build something close to one in Antarctica.

This kind of colony would need to span half of Mars to actually have access to all the resources it needs to build all of the high-tech gear they would require to just not die of asphixiation. And they would need top-tier universities to actually have people capable of designing and building those high-tech systems, and media companies, and gigantic farms to make not just food but bioplastics and on and on.

Starting 60 years earlier on a project that would take a millennium is ultimately irrelevant.

Not to mention, nothing we could possibly do on Earth would make it even a tenth as hard to live here than on Mars. Nuclear wars, the worse bio-engineered weapons, super volcanoes - it's much, much easier to create tech that would allow us to survive and thrive after all of these than it is to create tech for humans to survive on a frozen irradiated dusty planet with next to no atmosphere. And Mars is still the most hospitable other celestial body in the solar system.

Post reply on HN