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

401–410 of 517 posts

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

#401

Post by perihelions »

dinkleberg wrote: post #370
perihelions wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully disagree. Satire should not be labelled as satire. Onus is on the reader to be awake and thinking critically—not for the entire planet to be made into a safe space for the unthinking. It was never historically the case that satire was expected to be labelled, or instantly recognized by anyone who stumbled across it. Satire is rude . It's meant to mock people—it is intended to muddle and provoke confused…

So when we have perfect deep fakes that are indistinguishable from real videos and people are using it for satire, people shouldn’t be required to inform people of that? How is one to figure out what is real and what is a satire? Times and technologies change. What was once reasonable won’t always be.

- "How is one to figure out what is real and what is a satire?"

Context, source, tone of speech, and reasonability.

- "Times and technologies change."

And so do people! We adapt to times and technology; we don't need to be insulated from them. The only response needed to a new type of artificial medium, is, that people learn to be marginally more skeptical about that medium.

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

#402

Post by tsimionescu »

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.

Video evidence already requires attestation to be admissible evidence. You need a witness to claim that the footage comes from a camera that was placed there, that it was collected from the night of, etc. It's not like the prosecutor gets a tape in the mail and they can present it as evidence.

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

#403

Post by hackernewds »

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…

keep holding ourselves back with poorly written legislation designed to garner votes while rival companies take strides in the technology at rapid rates

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

#404

Post by hackernewds »

yoavz wrote: post #257
elpocko wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer hit a lot of notes is still fine though.

Correct, it's the inverse that requires disclosure by Youtube. Still, I find it interesting. If you can't synthetically alter someone's performance to be "worse", is it OK that the NFL synthetically altered Alicia Key's performance to be "better"? For a more consequential example, imagine Biden's marketing team "cleaning up" his speech after he has mumbled or trailed off a word, misleading the US public during an ele…

I don't understand the distinction. if the intent is to protect the user, then what if I make the sound better for rival contestants on American idol and don't do it for singers of a certain race.

seems to comply?

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

#405

Post by johnny22 »

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.

ah. I thought it'd be more in the vein of safetynet, but guess not.

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

#406

Post by hackernewds »

DylanDmitri wrote: post #48
nosvince wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, and many have done exactly the same kind of video using VFX. What's the difference? These kind of reactions remind me of the stories of the backlash following the introduction of calculators in schools...

Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved. VFX requires more expertise to do convincingly and realistically, in the thousands of hours of experience. More involved scenes require multiple professionals. The tooling and assets costs more. An inexperienced person, in a hundred hours of effort, can put out 10ish realistic scenes with leading edge AI tools, when previously they could do 0. This is like regulating h…

so if I used Blender it's banned? it's very tough to draw that line in the sand

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

#407

Post by shafyy »

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…

> I am really super surprised that basic survival needs are NOT on the table when we are all arguing about religion, abortion, guns, etc. Like really?

Most people in the world struggle to feed themselves and their families. This is the basic survival need. Do you think they fucking care what happens to humantiy in 100k years? Stop drinking that transhumanism kool-aid, give your windows a good cleaning and look at what's happening in the real world, every day.

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

#408

Post by Intralexical »

hackernewds wrote: post #403
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…

keep holding ourselves back with poorly written legislation designed to garner votes while rival companies take strides in the technology at rapid rates

> keep holding ourselves back

Not everyone works in ML.

> with poorly written legislation

This is a company policy, not legislation.

> designed to garner votes

Represent the will of the people?

> while rival companies take strides

Towards?

> in the technology at rapid rates

YouTube's "Trending" page isn't a research lab.

Even if it was, why would honesty slow it down?

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

#409

Post by Intralexical »

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…

I think the real benefit for this is that probably that it establishes trust as the default, and acts as a discriminator for good-faith uses of "AI". If most non-malicious uses of ML are transparently disclosed, and that's normalized, then it should be easier to identify and focus on bad-faith uses.

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

#410

Post by Intralexical »

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.

By that rationale, all witness testimony and written evidence should already be inadmissible.

This website focuses too much on the technical with little regard for the social a bit too often. Though in general, videos being easily fakable is still scary.

Post reply on HN