Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#41

Post by nrmitchi »

yahoozoo wrote: post #31
nrmitchi wrote: post #29

This seems like a (potential) solution looking for a nail-shaped problem. Yes, there is a huge problem with AI content flooding the field, and being able to identify/exclude it would be nice (for a variety of purposes) However, the issue isn't that content was "AI generated"; as long as the content is correct , and is what the user was looking for, they don't really care. The issue is content that was generated en-ma…

It says in the first paragraph it’s for crawlers and bots. How many humans are inspecting the headers of every page they casually browse? An immediate problem that could potentially be addressed by this is the “AI training on AI content” loop.

It would still be required for the content producer (ie, the content-spam-farm) to label their content as such.

The current approach is that the content served is the same for humans and agents (ie, a site serves consistent content regardless of the client), so who a specific header is "meant for" is a moot point here.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#42

Post by paulddraper »

weddpros wrote: post #18

Maybe we should avoid training AI with AI-generated content: that's a use case I would defend. Still I believe MIME would be the right place to say something about the Media, rather than the Transport protocol. On a lighter note: we should consider second order consequences. The EU commission will demand its own EU-AI-Disclosure header be send to EU citizens, and will require consent from the user before showing him…

Content-Type/MIME type is for the format.

There are dedicated headers for other properties, e.g. language.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#43

Post by paulddraper »

xgulfie wrote: post #23
judge123 wrote: post #21

I'm genuinely torn. On one hand, transparency is good. But on the other, I can totally see this header becoming a lazy filter for platforms to just automatically demote or even block any AI-assisted content. What happens to artists using AI tools, or writers using it for brainstorming?

They can adapt or get left behind

Ha

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#44

Post by paulddraper »

patrickhogan1 wrote: post #17

The bigger challenge here is that we already struggle with basic metadata integrity. Sites routinely manipulate creation dates for SEO - I regularly see 5-year-old content timestamped as "published yesterday" to game Google's freshness signals. While this doesn't invalidate the proposal, it does suggest we'd see similar abuse patterns emerge, once this header becomes a ranking factor.

Does that work? There’s no way…

Most web servers use mtime for Last-Modified header.

It would be crazy for Google to treat that as authorship date, and I cannot believe that they do.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#45

Post by politelemon »

grumbel wrote: post #9

Completely the wrong way around. We are heading into a future where everything will be touched by AI in some way, be it things like Photoshop Generative Fill, spell check, subtitles, face filters, upscaling, translation or just good old algorithmic recommendations. Even many smartphones already run AI over every photo they make. Doing it in a HTTP header is furthermore extremely lossly, files get copy around and that…

The authors do seem to be conflating AI as a marketing term with chat gpt types. AI encompasses a broad suite of technologies including the spell check you've mentioned and given them number of tools used today that would technically constitute AI, this header makes no sense.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#46

Post by dragonwriter »

paulddraper wrote: post #44
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #17

The bigger challenge here is that we already struggle with basic metadata integrity. Sites routinely manipulate creation dates for SEO - I regularly see 5-year-old content timestamped as "published yesterday" to game Google's freshness signals. While this doesn't invalidate the proposal, it does suggest we'd see similar abuse patterns emerge, once this header becomes a ranking factor.

Does that work? There’s no way… Most web servers use mtime for Last-Modified header. It would be crazy for Google to treat that as authorship date, and I cannot believe that they do.

> It would be crazy for Google to treat that as authorship date, and I cannot believe that they do.

I'm not sure what Google uses for authorship date, but if you do date-range based web searches, the actual dates of the content no longer have any meaningful relationship to what was set in the earch criteria (news seems mostly better but with some problems, but actual web search is hopeless). In both directions -- searching for recent stuff gets plenty of very old stuff mixed in, but searching for stuff from a period well in the past gets lots of stuff from yesterday, too.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#47

Post by weddpros »

paulddraper wrote: post #42
weddpros wrote: post #18

Maybe we should avoid training AI with AI-generated content: that's a use case I would defend. Still I believe MIME would be the right place to say something about the Media, rather than the Transport protocol. On a lighter note: we should consider second order consequences. The EU commission will demand its own EU-AI-Disclosure header be send to EU citizens, and will require consent from the user before showing him…

Content-Type/MIME type is for the format. There are dedicated headers for other properties, e.g. language.

Actually you're 100% correct.

Feels weird to me that encoding is part of MIME, but language isn't, although I understand why.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#48

Post by patrickhogan1 »

paulddraper wrote: post #44
patrickhogan1 wrote: post #17

The bigger challenge here is that we already struggle with basic metadata integrity. Sites routinely manipulate creation dates for SEO - I regularly see 5-year-old content timestamped as "published yesterday" to game Google's freshness signals. While this doesn't invalidate the proposal, it does suggest we'd see similar abuse patterns emerge, once this header becomes a ranking factor.

Does that work? There’s no way… Most web servers use mtime for Last-Modified header. It would be crazy for Google to treat that as authorship date, and I cannot believe that they do.

On platforms like Wordpress these headers are settable via SEO plugins. Many sites will roll these headers forward.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#49

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

grumbel wrote: post #9

Completely the wrong way around. We are heading into a future where everything will be touched by AI in some way, be it things like Photoshop Generative Fill, spell check, subtitles, face filters, upscaling, translation or just good old algorithmic recommendations. Even many smartphones already run AI over every photo they make. Doing it in a HTTP header is furthermore extremely lossly, files get copy around and that…

Yup, this is the way. Assume everything is AI unless proven otherwise.

Re: Proposal: AI Content Disclosure Header

#50

Post by paulddraper »

weddpros wrote: post #47
paulddraper wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Content-Type/MIME type is for the format. There are dedicated headers for other properties, e.g. language.

Actually you're 100% correct. Feels weird to me that encoding is part of MIME, but language isn't, although I understand why.

Yeah. The reason is that charset is a specific to text types. Language can apply to many media.

Though FWIW, I think the Content-Encoding header is basically a mistake, should should been Content-Transform.

Post reply on HN