How else is google able to train their competitor if they don't know if the video they are training on is real or not.
YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
431–440 of 517 posts
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#432I 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 Once something like Sora is available to the public, its going to be game over. A new bunch of creators will use it to "create" videos and I am sure you will change your mind then.
"Game over".
Typical, people who don't want their feeds filled with AI generated pigswill are to be defeated, not persuaded.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#433I 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…
At some point fairly soon we will probably have to label everything as AI generated until proven otherwise
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#434Most interesting example to me: "Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance". This seems oddly specific to the inverse of what happened recently with Alicia Keys from the recent Superbowl. As Robert Komaniecki pointed out on X [1], Alicia Keys hit a "sour note" which was silently edited by the NFL to fix it. [1] https://twitter.com/Komaniecki_R/status/1757…
Oh no, is that going to mess up my favorite genre called shreds? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nAhQOoJTIA
Only if people start rejecting it because they learn it was modified by AI.
If they don't reject it for that, nothing changes.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#435Will be meaningless within 3 years. The tide is clear and 50% of all pixels created will be traveling through these models by then.
It’s obvious this tech will replace all vfx, lots of elements of a camera pipeline and eventually even video game rendering.
The labelling will become to common it will mean nothing.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#436Looks 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…
To me, the guidelines are fairly clear: if it’s assisting production of a work of fiction, it’s ok.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#437> Altering footage of real events or places: Such as making it appear as if a real building caught fire, or altering a real cityscape to make it appear different than in reality. What about the picture you see before clicking on the actual video? This article of course is addressing the content of the videos, but I can't help but look at the comically cartoonish, overly dramatic -- clickbait -- picture preview of the…
I don't think they need to be treated the same. The thumbnail isn't the content itself necessarily.
Yeah I agree; and it's generally a bit harder to communicate _too_ much misinformation in a thumbnail.
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#438They don't bother to mention it, but this is actually to comply with the the new EU AI act. > Providers will also have to ensure that AI-generated content is identifiable. Besides, AI-generated text published with the purpose to inform the public on matters of public interest must be labelled as artificially generated. This also applies to audio and video content constituting deep fakes https://digital-strategy.ec.eu…
I think many countries have started considering the legal regulation of using AI in any content
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#439>Some examples of content that require disclosure include: [...] Generating realistic scenes: Showing a realistic depiction of fictional major events, like a tornado moving toward a real town. This sounds like every thumbnail on youtube these days. It's good that this is not limited to AI, but it also means this will be a nightmare to police.
This is very reminiscent of an act where someone calls the police about a 'looming' terrorist attack, for example
Re: YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI
#440Rather 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.
This would I think be the ideal if it's possible. I'd love videos to have signatures that prove when it was recorded, that it was recorded from so and so a phone, that it hasn't had any modification, and maybe even optionally the GPS location (for like news organisations, to even more reliabily prove the validity of their media). And then have a way to have a video format that can allow certain modifications (eg colour grading), but encode that some aesthetic changes were made. And, more importantly, a way to denote that a region of video is a clip of a another video, and provide a backing signature for the validity of the clip.
That would allow a much strong verifiability of media. But I'm not sure if that would be possible...