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

361–370 of 517 posts

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

#361

Post by leoqa »

randmeerkat wrote: post #311
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…

> Alters footage of a real event or place I wonder if this will make all forms of surveillance, video or otherwise, inadmissible in court in the near future. It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch for a lawyer to make an argument for reasonable doubt, with any electronic media now.

There will be a new side gig for ‘experts’ to explain deepfakes to a jury.

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

#362

Post by leoqa »

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.

If I have a CCTV camera that is in a known location and a TPM that signs its footage, I could probably convince a jury that it’s legit in the face of a deepfake defense.

That’s the bar- it’s not going to be infallible but if you don’t find evidence of tampering with the hardware then it’s probably going to be fine.

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

#363

Post by dataflow »

8note wrote: post #360
dataflow wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with root? The camera chip would be the one signing the data flowing through it, not the Android kernel.

If you do a jpeg compression, or crop the file, then does that signature matter anymore?

Not if you do it, only if the chip also gives you a signed JPEG. Cropping and other simple transformations aren't an issue, though, since you could just specify them in unsigned metadata, and people would be able to inspect what they're doing. Either way, just having a signed image from the sensor ought to be adequate for any case where the authenticity is more important than anesthetics. You share both the processed version and the original, as proof that there's no misleading alteration.

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

#365

Post by NoPicklez »

idatum wrote: post #141

> Altering footage of real events or places: Such as making it appear as if a real building caught fire, or altering a real cityscape to make it appear different than in reality. What about the picture you see before clicking on the actual video? This article of course is addressing the content of the videos, but I can't help but look at the comically cartoonish, overly dramatic -- clickbait -- picture preview of the…

I don't think they need to be treated the same.

The thumbnail isn't the content itself necessarily.

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

#366

Post by NoPicklez »

After reading it I think it's a good approach, whilst not perfect it's a good step.

Interestingly it isn't just referring to AI but also "other tools", used to make content that is "altered, synthetic and seems real".

Fair amount of ambiguity in there but I see what they're getting at when it comes to the bigger fish like the president being altered to say something they didn't.

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

#367

Post by lysp »

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 think it also gives them a legal / business remedy if people fail to label their content.

If someone for example makes a political video and fails to label it, they can delete the video/terminate the account for a breach of service.

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

#368

Post by kevindamm »

kazinator wrote: post #68
summerlight wrote: post #34

Looks like there is a huge grea area that they need to figure out in practice. From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491# : Examples of content creators don’t have to disclose: * Someone riding a unicorn through a fantastical world * Green screen used to depict someone floating in space * Color adjustment or lighting filters * Special effects filters, like adding background blur or vintage effects * Pro…

> 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.

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

#369

Post by [deleted] »

danlugo92 wrote: post #334
twodave wrote: post #244

I've said before that we're entering an age where no online material is truly verifiable without some kind of hardware signing (and even that has its flaws). Public figures will have to sort out this quagmire before things get even uglier than they are. And I really hope that's the biggest problem of the next decade or so, rather than that we achieved AGI and it decided we were inferior.

I guess the first AGI will not be connected to anything thus it will be shut down right away if it wants to kill us? I think...

[deleted]

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

#370

Post by dinkleberg »

perihelions wrote: post #299
samatman wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The third one could easily be satire. Imagine that a politician is accused of stealing from the public purse, and issues a meme-worthy press statement denying it, and someone generates AI content of that politician claiming not to have stolen a car or something using a similar script. Valid satire, fair use of the original content: parody is considered transformative. But it should be labeled as AI generated, or it's…

Respectfully disagree. Satire should not be labelled as satire. Onus is on the reader to be awake and thinking critically—not for the entire planet to be made into a safe space for the unthinking. It was never historically the case that satire was expected to be labelled, or instantly recognized by anyone who stumbled across it. Satire is rude . It's meant to mock people—it is intended to muddle and provoke confused…

So when we have perfect deep fakes that are indistinguishable from real videos and people are using it for satire, people shouldn’t be required to inform people of that?

How is one to figure out what is real and what is a satire? Times and technologies change. What was once reasonable won’t always be.

Post reply on HN