Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.google

281–290 of 517 posts

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

#281
post #18

So beauty filters are ok, but what's the true difference between a strong beauty filter and a face change.

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.

> Society is simply revisiting a conversation about doctored photographs, videos, and audio recordings.

society in this case = media companies

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

#282
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. At which point nobody could verify anything that happened with any existing camera, including all past events as of today and all future events captured with any existing came…

also the three letter agencies (not just from the US) will have access to private keys of at least some manufacturers, allowing them to authenticate fake events and sow chaos by strategically leaking keys for cameras that recorded something they really don't like.

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

#283
post #97

I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up like prop 65 cancer warnings, or cookie banners. The intention might be to separate believable but low quality hallucinated AI content spam from high quality manual content. But it will backfire like prop 65. You'll see notices everywhere because increasingly AI will be used in all parts of the content creation pipeline. I see YouTube's own guidelines in the article and they se…

Cookie banners are not required even by EU laws. It's a stupid trend everyone is copying.

That's technically correct but not entirely true.

The ePrivacy directive and GDPR don't literally require cookie banners but the former requires disclosure of specific information and the latter requires consent for most forms of data collection and processing. Even the 2002 directive actually require an option to refuse cookies which many cookie banners still fail to implement properly post-GDPR.

The problem is that most websites want to start collecting, tracking and processing data that requires consent before any interaction takes place that would allow for a contextual opt-in. This means they have to get that consent somehow and the "cookie banner" or consent dialog serves that purpose.

Of course many (especially American) implementations get this hilariously wrong by a) collecting and processing data even before consent is established, b) not making opt-out as trivial as opt-in despite the ePrivacy directive explicitly requiring this (e.g. hiding "refuse" behind a "more info" button or not giving it the same weight as "accept all"), c) not actually specifying the details on what data is collected etc to the level required by the directive, d) not providing any way to revise/change the selections (especially withdrawing consent previously given) and e) trying to trick users with a manual opt-out checkbox per advertiser/service labeled "legitimate interest" which is an alternative to consent and thus is not something you can opt out of because it does not require consent (but of course in these cases the use never actually qualifies as "legitimate interest" to begin with and the opt-out is a poorly constructed CYA).

In a different world, consent dialogs could work entirely like mobile app permissions: if you haven't given consent for something you'll be prompted when it becomes relevant. But apparently most sites bank on users pressing "accept all" to get rid of the annoying banner - although of course legally they probably don't even have data to determine if this gamble works for them because most analytics requires consent (i.e. your analytics will show a near 100% acceptance rate because you only see the data of users who opted into analytics and they likely just pressed "accept all").

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

#284
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…

Basically, Google decides what’s real and what’s not. Cool.

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

#287

I 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, its not worth my time looking at it.

God, I wish I could beam this sentence directly into the brain of every single person breathlessly excited about using gen AI to be "a creative".

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

#288
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. It's not "hallucination", it's "error".

It isn't an error, either. It's doing exactly what it's intended to, exactly as it's intended to do it. The error is in the human assumption that the ability to construct syntactically coherent language signals self-awareness or sentience. That it should be capable of understanding the semantics correctly, because humans obviously can. There really is no correct word to describe what's happening, because LLMs are eff…

> It isn't an error, either. It's doing exactly what it's intended to, exactly as it's intended to do it.

If the output is incorrect, that's error. It may not be a bug, but it is still error.

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

#289
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Hallucinate" is definitely marketing. it translates to "Creates text which contains incorrect or invalid information" The latter just doesn't sound as good in headlines/articles/tutorials (eg. marketing material).

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.

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

#290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if a real person reads a script that was created with an LLM? Does that count? Should it?

Blog post specifically mentions that using AI to help writing the script does not require labeling the video.

Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear that I was specifically responding to the GP comment referencing the EU AI act (as opposed to creating a new top-level comment responding to the original blog post and Google's specific policy) which pointed out:

> 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

Clearly "AI-generated text" doesn't apply to YouTube videos.

But, it is interesting that if you use an LLM to generate text and present that text to users, you need to inform them it was AI-generated (per the act). But if a real person reads it out, apparently you don't (per the policy)?

This seems like a weird distinction to me. Should the audience be informed if a series of words were LLM-generated or not? If so, why does it matter if they're delivered as text, or if they're read out?

Post reply on HN