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

471–480 of 517 posts

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

#471

Post by sangnoir »

smt88 wrote: post #317
sangnoir wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect we're headed into a world of attestation via cryptographically signed videos. If you're the sole witness, then you can reduce the trust in the event, however, if it's a major event, then we can fall back on existing news-gathering machinery to validate and counter your false tagging (e.g. if a BBC camera captured the event, or there is some other corroboration & fact checking).

How does the signature help? It only proves that the video hasn't been altered since [timestamp]. It doesn't prove that it wasn't AI-generated or manipulated.

Signatures are also able to (mostly) signal that a specific device (and/or application on that device) captured the video. It would be possible to check if a video was encoded by a specific instance of an iOS Camera app or AfterEffects on PC.

Everything else - corroboration, interviews, fact checking will remain as they are today and can't be replaced by technology. So I imagine a journalist would reach out to person who recorded thr video, ask them to show their device's fingerprint and ask about their experience when (event) occured, and then corroborate all that information from other sources.

When the news org publishes the video, they may sign it with their own key and/or vouch for the original one so viewers of clips on social media will know that Fox News (TM) is putting their name and reputation behind the video, and it hasn't been altered from the version Fox News chose to share, even though the "ModernMilitiaMan97" account that reshared it seems dubious.

Currently, there's no way to detect alterations or fabrications of both the "citizen-journalist" footage and post-broadcast footage.

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

#472

Post by immibis »

peddling-brink wrote: post #461
dragonwriter wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, because the ToS says they can do anything they want to. The purpose of a ToS is to set an expectation on which things the company will tolerate users doing. It's (almost always) not legally binding for either party.

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

#473

Post by immibis »

surajrmal wrote: post #349
barfbagginus wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry Google has become incompetent - it is in the "Fading AOL" portion of its life cycle. Do you remember how incontinent AOL became in the final minutes before it became completely irrelevant? Sure it's taking longer with Google. But it's not a process that they can reverse. That means the system will be really really awful. So challengers can arise - maybe a challenger that YOU build, and open source!

I think you're living in a bubble if you believe that.

That open source can replace corporate centralization? Since centralized platforms started extracting more profits (including manipulation) things like Fediverse are on the rise. For mindless browsing, centralized is still king for now (Fediverse also works to an extent) but if your site has something better than what's on the centralized corporate platform, people will go there once they learn about it. We're on Hacker News instead of Reddit because?

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

#474

Post by jonathankoren »

jjcm wrote: post #45
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…

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?

Absolutely. Mass reporting for content violations to attack someone has been a tactic decades.

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

#476

Post by hacker_junky »

dragonwriter wrote: post #455
rileymat2 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why does it matter if it was generated by AI instead of generated like Forest Gump?

Because right now AI is an issue the public and policymakers are concerned about, and this is to show that private industry can take adequate steps to control it to stave up government regulation while the attention is high.

agreed. also, I think it will have the secondary effect of users rewarding non-ai content, and discourage ai generated content makers.

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

#477

Post by deadbabe »

jjcm wrote: post #45
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…

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?

This isn’t strictly some blackhat thing, people will attempt to hand wave inconvenient evidence against them as AI generated and build reasonable doubt.

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

#478

Post by int_19h »

krapp wrote: post #428
int_19h wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one hell of a coincidence if it just "happens" to write syntactically correct code that does what the user asked, for example.

It is. It's a language model, trained on syntactically correct code, with a data set which presumably contains more correct examples of code than not, so it isn't surprising that it can generate syntactically correct code, or even code which correlates to valid solutions. But if it actually had insight and knowledge about the code it generated, it would never generate random, useless (but syntactically correct) code,…

It's not surprising if it generated syntactically correct code that does random things.

The fact that it instead generates syntactically correct code that, more often than not, solves - or at least tries to solve - the problem that is posited, indicates that there is a "there" there, however much one talks about stochastic parrots and such.

As for temperature sliders for humans, that's what drugs are in many ways.

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

#480

Post by fwip »

946789987649 wrote: post #470
exodust wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the suggestion being discussed was AI-cloning your voice, and then using that for text-to-speech. Audio generation, rather than automating the cuts and tweaks to the recorded audio.
Post reply on HN