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

461–470 of 517 posts

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

#461

Post by peddling-brink »

dragonwriter wrote: post #453
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 am curious to see the legal arguments that will inevitably kick up from each of these Google policy isn't law; there's no court judging legal arguments, it is enforced at Google’s whim and with effectively no recourse, at least not one which is focused on parsing arguments about the details of the policy. So there won’t be “legal arguments” over what exactly it applies to.

Can’t they be sued for breach of contract if they aren’t following their own tos? Having a rule like this gives them leeway to remove what they consider harmful.

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

#462

Post by exodust »

alt227 wrote: post #416
exodust wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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!

Is this really any different to say using makeup, cosmetic plastic surgery, or even choosing to wear specific clothes?

A lot different? The equivalent would be applying makeup to your mannequin replacement. All the things you mention are decoration. Replacing your voice is more than a surface alteration. I guess if some clever AI decides to take issue with what I say, and uses some enforcement tactic to arm-twist my opinion, I could change my mind.

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

#463

Post by pixl97 »

RandallBrown wrote: post #312
pixl97 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about as realistic as the next generation of congress people ending up 40 years younger. We literally have politicians talking about pouring acid on hardware and expect these same bumbleheads to keep their signing keys safe at the same time. The average person is far too technologically illiterate to do that. Next time you go to grandmas house you'll learn she traded her signing key for chocolate chip cookies…

I imagine it would be something handled pretty automatically for everyone. If Apple wanted to sign every photo and document the iPhone they could probably make the whole user experience simple enough for most grandmas. Some people will certainly give away their keys, just like bank accounts and social security numbers today, but those people probably aren't terribly concerned with proving the ownership of their onlin…

>I imagine it would be something handled pretty automatically for everyone.

Then your imagination fails you.

If it is automatic/easy, then you have the 'easy key' problem, such as the key is easy to steal or copy. For example is it based on your apple account? Then what occurs with an account is stolen? Is it based on a device, what happens when the device is stolen?

Who's doing the PKI? Is it going to be like https, but for individuals (this has never really worked at this scale and with revocation). Like most social media is posting content taken by randos on the internet.

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

#464

Post by IshKebab »

dartos wrote: post #289
IshKebab wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely not marketing. It has been in use for a lot longer than LLMs existed.

Links? Also those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Errors in statistical models being called hallucinations in the past does not mean that term is not marketing speak for what I said earlier.

Here's an example from 2019.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRDfzjxzj3M

> Also those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

> Errors in statistical models being called hallucinations in the past does not mean that term is not marketing speak for what I said earlier.

The implicit claim was that they call this hallucination because it sounds better. In other words that some marketing people thought "what's a nicer word for 'mistakes'?" That is categorically untrue.

I don't think there's any point arguing about whether or not the marketers like the use of the word "hallucinate" because neither of us has any evidence either way. Though I was also say the null hypothesis is that they're just using the standard word for it. So the onus is on you to provide some evidence that marketers came in an said "guys, make sure you say 'hallucinate'". Which I'm 99% sure has never happened.

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

#465

Post by michaelt »

dataflow wrote: post #358
qbit42 wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's true that 1990s pirated videos where someone snuck a handheld camera into the cinema were often very low quality.

But did you know large portions of The Mandalorian were produced with the actors acting in front of an enormous, high-resolution LED screen [1] instead of building a set, or using greenscreen?

It turns out pointing a camera at a screen can actually be pretty realistic, if you know what you're doing.

And I suspect the pr agencies interested in flooding the internet with images of Politician A kicking a puppy and Politician B rescuing flood victims do, in fact, know what they're doing.

[1] https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/20/how-the-mandalorian-and-il...

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

#466

Post by kazinator »

kevindamm wrote: post #368
kazinator wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Synthetically generating music Yagoddabekidding. That could cover any piece of music created with MIDI sequencing and synthesizers and such.

I think there's a clear difference between synthesizing music and synthetically generating music. One term has been around for decades and the other one is being confused with that.

To someone who is doing one or the there is a clear difference. I don't trust the EU or YouTube to be able to tell the difference from the other end, by the end product alone.

If AI writes MIDI input for a synthesizer, rather than producing the actual waveform, where does that land?

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

#467

Post by JohnFen »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #422
sverhagen wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was immediately thinking that the #AI labels are going to give people a false sense of trust, so that when someone posts a good-enough fake without the #AI label, it can do damage if it goes viral before it gets taken down for the mislabeling. (Kudos for the effort, though, YouTube.)

Behind the scenes, I'm 99% confident that Google has deployed AI detection tools and will monitor for it. That said, unless all the AI generators agree on a way to add an unalterable marker that something is generated, at one point it may become undetectable. May.

I'm not aware of any AI detection tools that are actually effective enough to be interesting. Perhaps Google has some super-secret method that works, but I rather doubt it. If they did, I think they'd be trumpeting it from the hilltops.

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

#468

Post by escapedmoose »

electrondood wrote: post #449
HlessClaudesman wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Porn classification / regulation boils down to: "I'll know it when I see it." Implying the existence of some hyper vigilant seer who can heroically determine what we should keep behind the video storre curtain of dencey, as if no grey areas exist. This also has the problem of requiring actual unbiased humans to view and accurately assess everything, which of course does not scale. Perhaps AI classification is the mir…

The great thing about AI, is that it's exactly optimized for discriminating in gray areas with difficult-to-articulate rules like "I'll know it when I see it."

How so? I’ve previously thought that gray areas were an AI weakness, so I’m interested to hear the opposite perspective.

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

#469

Post by [deleted] »

kazinator wrote: post #466
kevindamm wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a clear difference between synthesizing music and synthetically generating music. One term has been around for decades and the other one is being confused with that.

To someone who is doing one or the there is a clear difference. I don't trust the EU or YouTube to be able to tell the difference from the other end, by the end product alone. If AI writes MIDI input for a synthesizer, rather than producing the actual waveform, where does that land?

[deleted]

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

#470

Post by 946789987649 »

exodust wrote: post #462
alt227 wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really any different to say using makeup, cosmetic plastic surgery, or even choosing to wear specific clothes?

A lot different? The equivalent would be applying makeup to your mannequin replacement. All the things you mention are decoration. Replacing your voice is more than a surface alteration. I guess if some clever AI decides to take issue with what I say, and uses some enforcement tactic to arm-twist my opinion, I could change my mind.

We already have people editing videos anyway, you never see the first cut. AI-matically removing umms is really just speeding up that process.
Post reply on HN