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

211–220 of 517 posts

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

#211

Post by huhlig »

ryandrake wrote: post #163
ehsankia wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a much clearer line though, it's much simpler to know if you were paid to create this content or not. Use of AI isn't, especially if it's deep in some tool you used. Does blurring part of the image with Photoshop count? What if Photoshop used AI behind the scene for whatever filter you applied? What about some video editor feature that helps with audio/video synchronization or background removal?

Maybe this could motivate toolmakers to label their own products as “Uses AI” or “AI Free” allowing content creators verify their entire toolchain to be AI Free. As opposed to today, where companies are doing everything they can, stretching the truth, just so they can market their tools as “Using AI.”

Where do you draw the line on things like Photoshop or Premier where AI suffuses the entire product. Not everything AI is generative AI.

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

#212

Post by munk-a »

ehsankia wrote: post #138
Jensson wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "sponsored content" tag on youtube seems to work very well though. Most content creators don't want to label their videos sponsored unless they are, I assume the same goes for AI generated content flags. Why would a manual content creator want to add that? > This post may have been generated by AI I doubt "may" is enough.

That's a much clearer line though, it's much simpler to know if you were paid to create this content or not. Use of AI isn't, especially if it's deep in some tool you used. Does blurring part of the image with Photoshop count? What if Photoshop used AI behind the scene for whatever filter you applied? What about some video editor feature that helps with audio/video synchronization or background removal?

This is a problem of provenance (as it's known in the art world) and being certain of the provanence is a difficult thing to do - it's like converting a cowboy coded C++ project to consistently using const... you need to dig deep into every corner and prefer dependencies that obey proper const usage. Doing that as an individual content creator would be extremely daunting - but this isn't about individuals. If Getty has a policy against AI and guarantees no AI generation on their platform while Shutterstock doesn't[1] then creators may end up preferring Getty so that they can label their otherwise AI free content as such on Youtube - maybe it gets incorporated into the algorithm and gets them more views - maybe it's just a moral thing... if there's market pressure then the down-the-chain people will start getting stricter and, especially if one of those intermediary stock providers violates an agreement and gets hit with a lawsuit, then we might see a more concerted movement to crack down on AI generation.

At the end of the day it's going to be drenched in contracts and obscure proofs of trust - i.e. some signing cert you can attach to an image if it was generated on an entirely controlled environment that prohibits known AI generation techniques - that technical side is going to be an arms race and I don't know if we can win it (which may just result in small creators being bullied out of the market)... but above the technical level I think we've already got all the tools we need.

1. These two examples are entirely fabricated

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

#213

Post by mazlix »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #65
jjcm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The AI tags are fundamentally useless. The premise is that it would prevent someone from misleading you by thinking that something happened when it didn't, but someone who wants to do that would just not tag it then. Which is where the real abuse comes in: You post footage of a real event and they say it was AI, and ban you for it etc., because what actually happened is politically inconvenient. And the only way to p…

I think you have a bit backwards. If you want to publish pixels on a screen there should be no assumption that they represent real events.

If you want to publish proof of an event, you should have some pixels on a screen along with some cryptographic signature from a device sensor that would necessitate atleast a big corporation like Nikon / Sony / etc. being "in on it" to fake.

Also since no one likes RAW footage it should probably just be you post your edited version which may have "AI" upscaling / de-noising / motion blur fixing etc, AND you can post a link to your cryptographically signed verifiable RAW footage.

Of course there's still ways around that like your footage could just be a camera being pointed at an 8k screen or something but at least you make some serious hurdles and have a reasonable argument to the video being a result of photons bouncing off real objects hitting your camera sensor.

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

#214

Post by munk-a »

huhlig wrote: post #211
ryandrake wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this could motivate toolmakers to label their own products as “Uses AI” or “AI Free” allowing content creators verify their entire toolchain to be AI Free. As opposed to today, where companies are doing everything they can, stretching the truth, just so they can market their tools as “Using AI.”

Where do you draw the line on things like Photoshop or Premier where AI suffuses the entire product. Not everything AI is generative AI.

You can't use them - other tools that match most of the functionality without including AI tools will emerge and take over the market if this is an important thing to people... alternatively Adobe wises up and rolls back AI stuff or isolates it into consumer-level only things that mark images as tainted.

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

#215

Post by ryandrake »

huhlig wrote: post #211
ryandrake wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe this could motivate toolmakers to label their own products as “Uses AI” or “AI Free” allowing content creators verify their entire toolchain to be AI Free. As opposed to today, where companies are doing everything they can, stretching the truth, just so they can market their tools as “Using AI.”

Where do you draw the line on things like Photoshop or Premier where AI suffuses the entire product. Not everything AI is generative AI.

This is a great point and I don’t know. We are entering a strange and seemingly totally untrustworthy world. I wouldn’t want to have to litigate all this.

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

#216

Post by omoikane »

> Creators must disclose content that [...] Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur

This may spoil the fun in some 3D rendered scenes. For example, I remember there was much discussion on whether a robot throwing a bowling ball was real or not[1].

Part of the problem has to do with all the original tags (e.g. "#rendering3d") being lost when the video spread through various platforms. The same problem will happen with Youtube -- creators may disclose everything, but after a few rounds through reddit and back, whatever disclosure and credit that was in the original video will be lost.

[1] https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1146431221876105216

https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1147870621713543168

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

#218

Post by xp84 »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #183
dawnerd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 65 is also way too broad. It needs to be specific about what carcinogens you’re being exposed to and not just “it’s a parking garage and this is our legally mandated sign”

As of 2016 companies are required to list the specific chemical and how to avoid or minimize exposure.

Seems to still be pretty pointless considering that roads and parking lots and garages are all to be avoided if you want to avoid exposure… just stay away from any of those

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

#219

Post by vkou »

diggan wrote: post #26
vkou wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Society is simply revisiting a conversation about doctored photographs, videos, and audio recordings. The last word on this subject was not written in the 1920s, it's good to revisit old assumptions every century or so, when new forms of media and media manipulation become developed. The first pass on it is unlikely to be the best, or even the last one.

> The first pass on it is unlikely to be the best, or even the last one. And just like a prototype that would never end up in production, we'll remain with the first implementation we could think of cough copyright cough

Copyright has been revised, overhauled and redefined multiple times over the past few centuries. You couldn't have picked a worse example.

Here's an obvious question that came up (and was resolved differently in different jurisdictions) - can photographs be copyrighted? What about photographs made in public? Of a market street? Of the Eifel tower? Of street art? Can an artist forbid photography of their art? An actor of their performance? A celebrity of their likeness? A private individual of their face? Does the purpose for which the photograph will be used matter?

At what point does a photograph have sufficient creative input to be copyrightable? Is pressing a button on a camera creative input? What about a machine that presses that button? Only humans can create copyrightable works under most jurisdictions. Is arranging the scene to be photographed a creative input? Can I arrange a scene just like yours and take a photo of it? Am I violating your copyright by doing it?

There's tens of thousands of pages of law and legal precedent that answer that question. As a conversation, it went on for decades, with no simple first-version solution sticking.

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

#220

Post by elpocko »

yoavz wrote: post #58

Most 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…

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