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

441–450 of 517 posts

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

#441

Post by nuz »

xarope wrote: post #373
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…

* Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance Does all the autotuning that singers use in live performance counts? /j

Interestingly they only say you have to disclose it if it's a singer missing a note. Seems like it's fair game to fix a note that was off key in real life and not disclose that.

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

#442

Post by SamBam »

perihelions wrote: post #401
dinkleberg wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

- "How is one to figure out what is real and what is a satire?" Context, source, tone of speech, and reasonability. - "Times and technologies change." And so do people! We adapt to times and technology; we don't need to be insulated from them. The only response needed to a new type of artificial medium, is, that people learn to be marginally more skeptical about that medium.

Nah. Satire was always safe when it's not pretending to have documented evidence of the thing actually happening.

Two recent headlines:

* Biden Urges Americans Not To Let Dangerous Online Rhetoric Humanize Palestinians [1]

* Trump says he would encourage Russia to attack Nato allies who pay too little [2]

Do you really think, if you jumped back a few years, you could have known which was satire and which wasn't?

The fact that we have video evidence of the second is (part) of how we know it's true. Sure, we could also trust the reporters who were there, but that doesn't lend itself to immediate verification by someone who sees the headline on their Facebook feed.

If the first had an accompanying AI video, do you think it would be believed by some people who are willing to believe the worst of Biden? Sure, especially in a timeline where the second headline is true.

1. https://www.theonion.com/biden-urges-americans-not-to-let-da...

2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/11/donald-trump...

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

#443

Post by BeFlatXIII »

bandrami wrote: post #345
robertlagrant wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think at minimum YouTube could tag existing footage uploaded before 2015 as very unlikely to be AI generated.

The first (acknowledged) deepfake video is from 1997

Hence, "unlikely" instead of "guaranteed real."

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

#444

Post by dormento »

xarope wrote: post #373
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…

* Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance Does all the autotuning that singers use in live performance counts? /j

IMHO, not even a /j.

Under the current guidelines, doesn't all music performances that make use of some sort of pitch correction assist are technically "digitally altered"?

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

#445

Post by chasd00 »

BlueGh0st wrote: post #384
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…

>Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen A bit funny considering a realistic warning and "live" radar map of an impending, major, natural disaster occurring in your city apparently doesn't violate their ad policy on YouTube. Probably the only time an ad gave me a genuine fright.

There’s a whole genre of videos on YouTube simulating the PSAs of large scale disasters. Nuclear war, meteors, etc. My 12 year old is really into them.

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

#446

Post by JohnFen »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #421
JohnFen wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear that we're barrelling fast toward a future when nobody can trust anything at all anymore, label or not.

And this isn't new. A fad in films in the 90's was hyper-realistic masks on the one side, and make-up and prosthetics artists on the other, making people look like other people. Faking things is not new, and you've always been right to mistrust what you see on the internet. "AI" technology has made it easy, convenient, accessible and affordable to more people though, beforehand you needed image/video editing skills a…

> you've always been right to mistrust what you see on the internet.

But these tools make deception easier and cheaper, meaning it will become much more common. Also, it's not just "on the internet". The trust problem this brings up applies to everything.

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

#447

Post by JohnFen »

krapp wrote: post #298
JohnFen wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Calling it an error implies the model should be expected to be correct, the way a calculator should be expected to be correct. It generates syntactically correct language, and that's all it does. There is no "calculation" involved, so the concept of an "error" is meaningless - the sentences it creates either only happen to correlate to truth, or not, but it's coincidence either way.

> Calling it an error implies the model should be expected to be correct

To a degree, people do expect the output to be correct. But in my view, that's orthogonal to the use of the term "error" in this sense.

If an LLM says something that's not true, that's an erroneous statement. Whether or not the LLM is intended or expected to produce accurate output isn't relevant to that at all. It's in error nonetheless, and calling it that rather than "hallucination" is much more accurate.

After all, when people say things that are in error, we don't say they're "hallucinating". We say they're wrong.

> It generates syntactically correct language, and that's all it does.

Yes indeed. I think where we're misunderstanding each other is that I'm not talking about whether or not the LLM is functioning correctly (that's why I wouldn't call it a "bug"), I'm talking about whether or not factual statements it produces are correct.

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

#449

Post by electrondood »

HlessClaudesman wrote: post #414
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…

Porn classification / regulation boils down to: "I'll know it when I see it." Implying the existence of some hyper vigilant seer who can heroically determine what we should keep behind the video storre curtain of dencey, as if no grey areas exist. This also has the problem of requiring actual unbiased humans to view and accurately assess everything, which of course does not scale. Perhaps AI classification is the mir…

The great thing about AI, is that it's exactly optimized for discriminating in gray areas with difficult-to-articulate rules like "I'll know it when I see it."

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

#450

Post by electrondood »

JohnFen wrote: post #239
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?

I fear that we're barrelling fast toward a future when nobody can trust anything at all anymore, label or not.

This deeply worries me. A post-truth society loses it's ability to participate in democracy, becomes a low-trust society, the population falls into learned helplessness and apathy ("who can even know what's true any more?")

Look at Russian society for a sneak preview if we don't get this right.

Post reply on HN