51–60 of 114 posts
Surely a better idea would be to focus on how we can idk, get camera firmware to cryptographically sign photos or somethin, and then have editing software apply a signature on top. Or at least encourage a system where theres a good chain of image provenance for photojournalists
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Buying a license for a stock photo vs using AI to create what you need is cutting corners? Don't thing there is much difference in effort (might even be more on the latter)?
Buying a license for a stock photo is paying someone who has put the effort. Well, okay, I am not sure how much effort goes into creating your typical stock photo, probably not a lot, just still more than 0 effort it takes for the AI to generate it. And yes, I see difference between an automated system flooding the web with AI generated "news" in disguise vs a niche blogger using AI to iterate on an image with hand c…
(I also think that labels will quickly become just "background noise" that is mostly ignored.)
What is the definition of "authentic looking?"
- law doesn't play "wording nitpicking", "Simon said" or similar nonsense. And this applies here, too.
- law doesn't care about what you or any "specific" person thinks something means/looks.
i.e. if you ask 1000 random people if something "looks authentic" and more then a very very small fractions says it is "authentic looking" then it is authentic looking (idk. what "more then a very small fraction" is, but 10% is definitely more)
Honestly any honest interpretation of "do you try or thing a random person from the street might mistake it as authentic (based on the _looks_, not content)" is giving you a pretty good idea for what it means. (honest here == not definition nitpicking, not egocentric, not elitist, not defaultist, etc. )
But also most relevant:
_This (authentic looking) is the wording of the article not the law/regulation._
This is mostly about content which tries to manipulate people with deep fakes.
And stuff like it being clear if e.g. a AI backed voice translation was used, as there had been more then one or two cases of voice translations being wrong in a way you would attribute to malice for a human translator.
E.g. Ai generated voice overs putting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Label additions done by machines vs those by humans?
An obvious start would be that any such technology needs to have its own clearly visible watermark and removing it constitutes a crime.
Surely a better idea would be to focus on how we can idk, get camera firmware to cryptographically sign photos or somethin, and then have editing software apply a signature on top. Or at least encourage a system where theres a good chain of image provenance for photojournalists
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised by the sentiment. With enough money you can already buy attention and presence. Now you can even facilitate a fake discourse to claim legitimacy and steer manipulation into entirely new realms. If this is not counteracted not only will rogue nations destroy democracies even faster, but powerful corporations and rich individuals will also use this to increase their power further and damage simple consume…
Rogue nations will not apply this AI label to the content they generate, so they will end up looking more authentic in comparison.
1: It gives legal leverage against vectors of misinformation. Misinformation is tricky to combat legally and this is a first obvious measure that can be taken.
2: Reputation will become more important in the future, and if you are found to have repeatedly posted AI content claiming it is not it will damage you. Not to mention that users can point out the obvious discrepancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's creativity and there's the creative process. I like to dictate documentation in long form monologue, and then give instructions how to structure it. Then I give it a final pass with manual adjustments and the end-result is exactly how it would have looked if I had written it from scratch but without the bsywork. Don't be stupid enough to let machines do your own thinking, treat them as a dishwasher.
Writing docs is, at best, only marginally creative work. Though honestly, still probably skip the LLM if you’ve any pride in your work; LLM-‘assisted’ docs are generally worse than those written by people.
You are still responsible for your work. What is important are the semantics and statements of the text. Less so how the exact arrangement of letters came to be.
My biggest problem with this is that this regulation is only aimed at AI. It should be much broader and include any technology that can be used to make 'authentic-looking' content. Why should someone who's good at Photoshop or VFX be allowed to share fake stuff as real, but not someone who's good with AI? For many years we've been aware that edited models on magazine covers, Instagram and in ads are negatively impact…
See these:
- https://www.instagram.com/p/DTDKbhflVRO/ - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8wvz427vo#:~:text=Accor...
And many, many examples in day to day reporting.
I'd rather have the laywork already there to punish sensationalist publishers that abuse AI to forge alternate realities than nothing.
Manipulating information is going to be the plague of the post-GPT/post-Midjourney era. We are entering an era where trust if going to be hard earned, and I don't know how you can trust for-profit or politician/billionaire owned companies anymore. What prevents WaPo from manufacturing information?
Surely a better idea would be to focus on how we can idk, get camera firmware to cryptographically sign photos or somethin, and then have editing software apply a signature on top. Or at least encourage a system where theres a good chain of image provenance for photojournalists
I even think that it might not need a mandate, if camera manufacturers start making it as a marketing claim. Prove your work is authentic and not AI generated!