3 ms·
FWIW, both of those examples are the kind of thing I think we'd all agree don't need to be labeled. No one is going to be fooled by those two videos. The worr
by ajross 3y ago
FWIW, both of those examples are the kind of thing I think we'd all agree don't need to be labeled. No one is going to be fooled by those two videos. The worry is about misleading videos, and having a mechanism to tag them as such that doesn't require content providers to get into the business of deciding on what is true.
Basically: "This video is synthetic and does not depict real babies being tortured in Gaza" is the use case in question.
- chankstein38 3y agoI'm 100% with you and all for those kinds of videos being labeled. I'm pretty nervous about the 2024 election with all of the capabilities we've got now. That said, I feel like the norm anymore is for companies to go way overboard and that was where I was going with my comment. The usage you're talking about makes perfect sense I just expect they'll require way more. Like look at how they've handled children. YouTube Kids already exists yet, for some reason, youtubers risk demonetization for showing blood or saying minor curse words to the point where it feels like we can't actually be adults on a platform that already has a counterpart specifically for children. Just not "advertiser friendly" but who's to say that advertisers won't decide that "An AI narrated informational video" is less advertiser friendly than a human narrated one?