19 ms·

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

• sigmoid10 3y ago
  >Some examples of content that require disclosure include: [...] Generating realistic scenes: Showing a realistic depiction of fictional major events, like a tornado moving toward a real town. This sounds like every thumbnail on youtube these days. It's good that this is not limited to AI, but it also means this will be a nightmare to police.
  • nosvince 3y ago
    Exactly, and many have done exactly the same kind of video using VFX. What's the difference? These kind of reactions remind me of the stories of the backlash following the introduction of calculators in schools...
    • dylan604 3y ago
      I'm sorry, but using a calculator to get around having to learn arithmetic is not even close being the same thing. Prove to me that you can do basic arithmetic, and then we can move on to using calculators for the more complex stuff where if you had to could at least come to the same value as the calculator. People using VFX aren't trying to create images in likeness of another existing person to get people to buy crypto or other scams. Comparing the two is disingenuous at best.
    • GolDDranks 3y ago
      > What's the difference? The ease and lack of skill required. That brings whole another set of implications.
    • DylanDmitri 3y ago
      Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved. VFX requires more expertise to do convincingly and realistically, in the thousands of hours of experience. More involved scenes require multiple professionals. The tooling and assets costs more. An inexperienced person, in a hundred hours of effort, can put out 10ish realistic scenes with leading edge AI tools, when previously they could do 0. This is like regulating handguns differently from compound bows. Both are lethal weapons, but the bow requires hours of training to use effectively, and is more difficult to carry discreetly. The combination of ease, convenience, and accessibility necessitates new regulation. This being said, AI for video is an incredibly promising technology, and I look forward to watching the TV shows and movies generated with AI-powered tooling.
      • nomel 3y ago
        > Using VFX for realistic scenes is more involved. This really depends on what you're doing. There are some great Cinema 4d plugins out there. As the plethora of YouTube tutorials out there clearly demonstrate, multiple professionals, and vast experience, are not required for some of the things they have listed. Tooling and assets costs are 0, in the high seas. Until Sora is widely available, or the open source models catch up, at this moment it's easier to use something like Cinema 4d than AI.
      • mazlix 3y ago
        What if i use an LLM powered AI to operate VFX software to generate a realistic looking scene? ;)
      • alickz 3y ago
        What if new AI tools negate the thousands of hours experience to generate realistic VFX scenes, so now realistic scenes can be made by both non-AI VFX experts and AI-assisted VFX laymen? Do we make all usages of VFX now require a warning, just in case the VFX was generated by AI? I think this is different to the bow v gun metaphor as I can tell an arrow from a bullet, but I can foresee a future where no human could tell the difference between AI-assisted and non-AI-assisted VFX / art I believe this is evidenced by the fact that people can go around accusing any art piece of being AI art and the burden of proving them wrong falls on the artist. Essentially I believe we are rapidly approaching the point of it not mattering if someone uses AI in their art because people won't be able to tell anyway
      • hackernewds 3y ago
        so if I used Blender it's banned? it's very tough to draw that line in the sand
  • Xeyz0r 3y ago
    This is very reminiscent of an act where someone calls the police about a 'looming' terrorist attack, for example
  • dev1ycan 3y ago
    You see thumbnails? I haven't seen a thumbnail in years, I use both DeArrow and Sponsorblock, youtube is very watchable.
• hanniabu 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • htk 3y ago
    Also, what is considered "significant" to be able to enforce it consistently?
  • badRNG 3y ago
    It gives YouTube the justification to remove videos that may not be technically rule-breaking otherwise. Though, I do imagine proving that a video is AI generated will quickly become functionally impossible.
  • koof 3y ago
    Why make laws if everyone bad is just gonna break them?
    • orblivion 3y ago
      It depends how easy it is to do. Last I heard there's no reliable way to detect fakes.
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    Perfect is the enemy of the good and all that. Still, I believe you are wrong despite your statement ringing true. You are conflating different reasons as to why people may want to generate AI videos. The nefarious motive may be nothing more than profit ('cheaper than paying actor') as opposed to malice('we want to defraud people'). There are all sorts of reasons as to why self-disclosure is not a bad start including the fact that if it turns out you lied, you can be removed without it being a question of freedom of speech and so on.
  • crmd 3y ago
    Yes, but it also creates a straightforward method for triggering a TOS violation if an unlabelled AI video is detected, allowing YT to remove deceptive videos and ban bad actors without adding more subjective editorial decisions into the review process. It would be hard, for example, for a political party to claim that this policy selectively discriminates against their viewpoint.
• _trampeltier 3y ago
  So beauty filters are ok, but what's the true difference between a strong beauty filter and a face change.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • vkou 3y ago
    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.
    • diggan 3y ago
      > The first pass on it is unlikely to be the best, or even the last one. And just like a prototype that would never end up in production, we'll remain with the first implementation we could think of cough copyright cough
      • callalex 3y ago
        This is a very inaccurate depiction of copyright. It originally only lasted around 20 years with the option to double it. Then it was reformed over and over across history to create the monster we have today.
      • vkou 3y ago
        Copyright has been revised, overhauled and redefined multiple times over the past few centuries. You couldn't have picked a worse example. Here's an obvious question that came up (and was resolved differently in different jurisdictions) - can photographs be copyrighted? What about photographs made in public? Of a market street? Of the Eifel tower? Of street art? Can an artist forbid photography of their art? An actor of their performance? A celebrity of their likeness? A private individual of their face? Does the purpose for which the photograph will be used matter? At what point does a photograph have sufficient creative input to be copyrightable? Is pressing a button on a camera creative input? What about a machine that presses that button? Only humans can create copyrightable works under most jurisdictions. Is arranging the scene to be photographed a creative input? Can I arrange a scene just like yours and take a photo of it? Am I violating your copyright by doing it? There's tens of thousands of pages of law and legal precedent that answer that question. As a conversation, it went on for decades, with no simple first-version solution sticking.
• floatrock 3y ago
  "made using AI" is such a fuzzy all-encompassing term that this feels like it will turn into another California Prop 65 warning scenario. Pretty soon every video will have a disclaimer like: WARNING: This video contains content known to the State of Google to be generated by AI algorithms and/or tools. Ok, beauty face filters are not included. How about character motion animations? How detailed does the after effects plugin need to be before it's considered AI? Can we generate just a background? Just a minor subject in the foreground? Or is it like pornography, where we'll recognize it once we see it? I fear AI tools will soon become so embedded in normal workflows that it's going to become a question of "how much" not "contains", and "how much" is such a blurry, subjective line that it's going to make any binary disclaimer meaningless.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • wwalexander 3y ago
    You might be interested in Adobe’s “Content Credentials” [1] which seemingly aim to clarify exactly what processing has applied to an image. I don’t like the idea of Adobe being the gatekeepers of image-fidelity-verification but the idea is intriguing and it seems like we’ll need something like this (that camera makers sign onto) to deal with AI. EDIT: I think these should also include whatever built-in processing is applied to the raw sensor data within the camera itself. [1] https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/content-credentials.html https://helpx.adobe.com/creative-cloud/help/content-credenti...
• fortran77 3y ago
  We need to fix the title. It's not just AI -- it's any realistic scene generated by VFX, animation, or AI. The title of the blogpost is "How we're helping creators disclose altered or synthetic content" -- it shouldn't say AI on the Hacker News title. > Generating realistic scenes: Showing a realistic depiction of fictional major events, like a tornado moving toward a real town. Does the Wizard of Oz tornado scene need a warning now? [0] (Of course not, but it may be hard to draw the line in some places.) [0] https://www.grunge.com/486387/heres-how-the-tornado-scene-in-the-wizard-of-oz-was-actually-made/ https://www.grunge.com/486387/heres-how-the-tornado-scene-in...
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • wnc3141 3y ago
    yes but that's very hard and doesn't scale, (can't be cheaply shot from multiple angles etc.)
  • pixelcloud 3y ago
    They don't make a distinction between AI generated and VFX. This is contained within the linked article.
• jquery 3y ago
  This is great. Really well-thought out policy, in my opinion. Sure, some people will try to get around the restrictions, especially nefarious actors, but the more popular the channel, the faster they'll get caught. It also doesn't try to distinguish between regular special effects and AI-generated special effects, which is wise.
  • m463 3y ago
    I don't know, sometimes rules need ambiguity, like "high crimes and misdemeanors", but other times the little guys lose, like civil asset forfeiture.
• dotnet00 3y ago
  Without enforceability it'll go the same way as it has on Pixiv, the good actors will properly label their AI utilizing work, while the bad actors will continue to lie to try to maximize their audience until they get caught, then rinse and repeat. Kind of like crypto-scammers. For context, Pixiv had to deal with a massive wave of AI content being dumped onto the site by wannabe artists basically right as the initial diffusion models became accessible. They responded by making 'AI-generated' a checkbox to go with the options to mark NSFW and adding an option for users to disable AI-generated content from being recommended to them. Then, after an incident of someone using their Patreon style service to pretend to be a popular artist, selling commissions generated by AI to copy the artist's style, they banned AI-generated content from being offered through that service.
  • jtriangle 3y ago
    Also remains to be seen if labeling your content as containing AI-generated work will help or hurt you in your viewership. My guess is that youtube is going to downrank this content, and may be trying to crowdsource training data in order to do this automatically.
    • dotnet00 3y ago
      I think that for now they're just going to use it as a means of figuring out what kind of AI-involved content people are ok with and what kind they react negatively to. Personally, I've developed a strong aversion to content that is primarily done by AI with very little human effort on top. After how things went with Pixiv I've come to hold the belief that our societies don't help people develop 'cultural maturity'. People want the clout/respect of being a popular artist/creator, without having to go through the journey they all go through which leads to them becoming popular. It's like wanting to use the title of Doctor without putting in the effort to earn a doctorate, the difference just being that we do have a culture of thinking that it's bad to do that.
  • dotancohen 3y ago
    I think that the idea is mostly to dictate culture. And I like the idea, not only for preventing fraud. Ever since the first Starship launches, the reality looks more incredible than the fiction. Go look up the SN-8 landing video, tell me that does not look generated. I just want to know what is real and what is generated, by AI or not. I think that this policy is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.
• strangescript 3y ago
  This a pointless nearly unenforceable rule to make people feel better. Sure, if you generate something that seems like a real event that is provably false you can be caught, but anything mundane is not enforceable. Once models reach something like Sora 1.5 level of ability, we are kind of doomed on knowing whats real in video.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • gloosx 3y ago
    naah, there still will be certain patterns and they will be recognisable. once something sora 1.5 level of ability is there – definitely reverse-sora model which can recognise ai-made videos should be possible to train as well
  • supertrope 3y ago
    >This a pointless nearly unenforceable rule to make people feel better. Pretty much. If Google says "Swiper no swiping" they can point at their policy when lobbying against regulations or pushing back against criticism. Before surveillance capitalism became the norm, web services told users to not share personal information, and to not trust other users they had not met in real life.
• throwaway0298 3y ago
  [dead]
• nextworddev 3y ago
  .
  • carlossouza 3y ago
    Exactly what I thought. Let’s see how long it will take them to collect enough data and train a model to distinguish AI-generated from user-generated videos.
• the_duke 3y ago
  They don't bother to mention it, but this is actually to comply with the the new EU AI act. > Providers will also have to ensure that AI-generated content is identifiable. 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 https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai#:~:text=Providers%20will%20also%20have%20to,video%20content%20constituting%20deep%20fakes https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory.... Some discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39746669 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39746669
  • machinekob 3y ago
    Ofc. they don't mention it for big tech companies EU = Evil
    • duringmath 3y ago
      You'd think they're evil too if they let a bunch of middlemen and parasitic companies dictate how the software you invested untold sums and hours developing and marketing should work.
      • damiankennedy 3y ago
        Why should software be any different from aircraft?
    • sylware 3y ago
      [flagged]
      • apwell23 3y ago
        I make good pay from that scam so screw EU trying to steal our wealth. How is this shit different that useless and annoying cookie popups.
• summerlight 3y ago
  Looks like there is a huge grea area that they need to figure out in practice. From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491# 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 * Production assistance, like using generative AI tools to create or improve a video outline, script, thumbnail, title, or infographic * Caption creation * Video sharpening, upscaling or repair and voice or audio repair * Idea generation Examples of content creators need to disclose: * Synthetically generating music (including music generated using Creator Music) * Voice cloning someone else’s voice to use it for voiceover * Synthetically generating extra footage of a real place, like a video of a surfer in Maui for a promotional travel video * Synthetically generating a realistic video of a match between two real professional tennis players * Making it appear as if someone gave advice that they did not actually give * Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen * Making it appear as if hospital workers turned away sick or wounded patients * Depicting a public figure stealing something they did not steal, or admitting to stealing something when they did not make that admission * Making it look like a real person has been arrested or imprisoned
  • Aardwolf 3y ago
    > Synthetically generating music (including music generated using Creator Music) What about music made with a synthesizer?
    • Jensson 3y ago
      If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is fine. But since AI can't legally have copyright to their music Google probably wants to know for that reason.
      • Gormo 3y ago
• jjcm 3y ago
  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 didn't say or do • Alters footage of a real event or place • Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur At the very least this will test each of these hypotheses, which we'll learn from and iterate on. I am curious to see the legal arguments that will inevitably kick up from each of these - is color correction altering footage of a real event or place? They explicitly say it isn't in the wider description, but what about beauty filters? If I have 16 video angles, and use photogrammetry / gaussian splatting / AI to generate a 17th, is that a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur? Do I need to have actually captured the photons themselves if I can be 99% sure my predictions of them are accurate? So many flaws, but all early steps have flaws. At least it is a step.
  • jjcm 3y ago
    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?
    • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The AI tags are fundamentally useless. The premise is that it would prevent someone from misleading you by thinking that something happened when it didn't, but someone who wants to do that would just not tag it then. Which is where the real abuse comes in: You post footage of a real event and they say it was AI, and ban you for it etc., because what actually happened is politically inconvenient. And the only way to prevent that would be a reliable way to detect AI-generated content which, if it existed, would obviate any need to tag anything because then it could be automated.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
• skybrian 3y ago
  I’m reminded of how banks require people to fill out forms explaining what they’re doing, where it’s expected that criminals will lie, but this is an easy thing to prosecute later after they’re caught. Could a similar argument be applied here? It doesn’t seem like there is much in the way of consequences for lying to Google. But I suppose they have other ways of checking for it, and catching someone lying is a signal that makes the account more suspicious.
  • antoniojtorres 3y ago
    It’s a compliance checkbox for the most part I think. They can stay on top of new legislation by claiming they are providing tools to deal with misinformation, whereas it’d be easier to say that they are encouraging the proliferation of misinformation by not doing anything about it. It certainly shifts the legal question in the way you described it would seem.
  • danpalmer 3y ago
    Yeah I think it’s a very similar approach to what you’ve described. The scale of YouTube, I don’t think you can just start banning content you don’t like. Instead you have to have a policy, clearly documented, and then you can start enforcing based on that policy. The other thing is that they don’t necessarily want to ban all of this content. For example a video demonstrating how AI can be used to create misinformation and showing examples, would be fairly clearly “morally” ok. The policy being that you have to declare it allows for this sort of content to live on the platform, but allows you to filter it out in certain contexts where it may be inappropriate (searches for election coverage?) and allows you to badge it for users (like Covid information tags).
• wslh 3y ago
  ELI5: what would be the difference if you use AI or it is a new release of Star Wars? I understand that AI does not need proof-of-work and that is the difference?
  • mvdtnz 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • wslh 3y ago
      I am not an AI, I am a person and in HN I look for being well treated.
• xyst 3y ago
  Self reporting. How useless. Wonder what legislation they are minimally complying with
• AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  These rules have really nothing to do with AI. They're trying to impose a ban on deceit.
  • ajross 3y ago
    That's like saying speed limit signs have really nothing to do with cars, they're trying to impose a ban on collision velocity. Which is true, but only speciously, as the rule exists only because motor vehicles made it so easy to go fast.
    • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      They don't have anything specifically to do with cars. They apply equally to motorcycles, trucks and anything else that could go that fast. Get pulled over in a tank or a hovercraft and try to tell the officer that you can't have been speeding because it isn't a car. Should we like deepfakes any better if they're created by a nation state using pre-AI Hollywood production technology, or "by hand" with Photoshop etc.? If 3D printers get better so that anybody can 3D print masks you can wear to convincingly look like someone else and then record yourself on camera, would you expect a different set of rules for that or are we talking about the same kind of problem?
      • ajross 3y ago
        You missed the analogy, so I'll spell it out: before we had cars[1], we couldn't go fast on roads, and there were no speed limit signs. Before we had AI, we couldn't deceive people with easy fakes, and so there was no need to regulate it. Now we do, and there is, and YouTube did. Trying to characterize this as not related to AI just isn't adding to the discussion. Clearly it is a response to the emergence of AI fakes. [1] And all the other stuff you list
        • AnthonyMouse 3y ago
          Trying to shovel in "and all of the other stuff" breaks the analogy though. Misinformation isn't new. Image gen is hardly the first time you could create a fictional depiction of something. It's not even the first time you could do it with commonly available tools. It's just the moral panic du jour. YouTube did this because the EU passed a law about it. The EU passed a law about it because of the moral panic, not because the abstract concept of deception was only recently invented. It's like having cars already, and speed limits, and then someone invents an electric car that can accelerate from 0 to 200 MPH in 5 seconds, so the government passes a new law with some arbitrary registration requirements to satisfy Something Must Be Done.
• arduanika 3y ago
  Is there a word missing from the title here? Requires whom?
  • jbiason 3y ago
    Same. For a second, I thought YouTube made a rule that YouTube is now required to flag the AI videos created by YouTube.
  • samatman 3y ago
    The title was editorialized, which people do far more often than they should. The original title, with the domain name next to it, would have been fine.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • cpncrunch 3y ago
      Editorializing is fine, as long as it's done properly and the headline makes sense.
      • samatman 3y ago
        It is not, except under certain circumstances which this case does not meet. > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
• yoavz 3y ago
  Most interesting example to me: "Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance". This seems oddly specific to the inverse of what happened recently with Alicia Keys from the recent Superbowl. As Robert Komaniecki pointed out on X [1], Alicia Keys hit a "sour note" which was silently edited by the NFL to fix it. [1] https://twitter.com/Komaniecki_R/status/1757074365102084464 https://twitter.com/Komaniecki_R/status/1757074365102084464
  • frays 3y ago
    This is a great example as a discussion point, thank you for sharing. I will be coming back to this video in several months time to check whether the "Altered or synthetic content" tag has actually been applied to it or not. If not, I will report it to YouTube.
    • ryandrake 3y ago
      Yea, it’s a really super example! However autotune has existed for decades. Would it have been better if artists were required to label when they used autotune to correct their singing? I say yes but reasonable people can disagree! I wonder if we are going to settle on an AI regime where it’s OK to use AI to deceptively make someone seem “better” but not to deceptively make someone seem “worse.” We are entering a wild decade.
      • JadedBlueEyes 3y ago
        > I say yes but reasonable people can disagree! A lot of people do! Tone correction [1] is a normal fact of life in the music industry, especially in recordings. Using it well takes both some degree of vocal skill and production skill. You'll often find that it's incredibly obvious when done poorly, but nearly unnoticeable when done well. [1] AutoTune is a specific brand
  • elpocko 3y ago
    Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer hit a lot of notes is still fine though.
• RobotToaster 3y ago
  If it's realistic who will know?
  • simion314 3y ago
    >If it's realistic who will know? Look at "realistic" photos , it is easy for someone with experience to spot issues, the hangs/fingers are wrong, shadows and light are wrong, hair is weird, eyes have issues. In a video there are much more information so much more places to get things wrong, making it pass this kind of test will be a huge job so many will not put the effort.
• lampiaio 3y ago
  AI that is indistinguishable from reality is a certainty for the not-so-distant future. That future will come, and it will come sooner than anyone's expecting. Yet all I see is society trying to prevent the inevitable from installing itself (because it's "scary", "dangerous", "undermines the very pillars of society" etc.), instead of preparing itself for when the inevitable occurs. People seem to have finally accepted we can't put the genie back in the bottle, so now we're at the stage where governments and institutions are all trying to look busy and pass the image of "hey, we're doing something about it, ok? You can feel safe". Soon we will be forced to accept that all that wasted effort was but a futile attempt at catching a falling knife. Maybe the next idiom in line will be "crying over spilled milk", because could someone point me to what is being done in terms of "hey, let's start by directly assuming a world in which anyone can produce unrestricted, genuine-looking content will soon come and there's no way around it -- what then?" All I see is a meteor approaching and everyone trying to divert it, but no one actually preparing for when it does hit. Each day that passes I'm more certain that we will we look at each other like fools, asking ourselves "why didn't we focus on preparing for change, instead of trying to prevent change"?
  • skobes 3y ago
    What sort of preparations do you recommend?
    • lampiaio 3y ago
      There's a saying in my local language that people usually say to someone who's going through a breakup or going through an unfair situation: "Accept it, it hurts less". I'm not saying it makes the actual situation any better; it obviously doesn't. But anyone can feel the rarefied AI panic in the air growing thicker by the minute, and panic will only make the situation worse both before and after absolute change takes place. When we don't accept incoming change before it arrives, we surely are forced to accept it after it arrives, at a much higher price. You asked about preparations: prepare yourself to see governments try (and fail) to regulate what processing power can be acquired by consumers. Prepare yourself for the serious proposal of "truth-checking agencies" with certified signatures that ensure "this content had its chain of custody verified as authentic from its CMOS capture up to its encoded video stream", in which a lot of time and effort will be wasted (there's already people replying about this, saying metadata and/or encryption will come to the rescue via private/public keys. Supposedly no will would ever film a screen!). The above might seem an exaggeration, but ask yourself: the YouTube guidelines this post is about, the recent EU regulation... do you think those are enough? Of course they're not. They will keep trying to solve the problem from the wrong end until they are (we are) forced to accept there's nothing that can be done about it, and that it is us who need to adapt to live in such a world. Enjoy the ride, I suppose.
• cush 3y ago
  Ah it’s better than nothing!
  • paulpauper 3y ago
    Scammers have been making fake content on youtube since its founding. And youtube has never even pretended so much as to care about doing anything about it.
• qwertox 3y ago
  How about first removing those crypto-scam channels which pop up whenever something big happens at SpaceX.
• yoavz 3y ago
  I am not envious of the policy folks at Youtube who will have to parse out all the edge cases over the next few years. They are up against a nearly impossible task. https://novehiclesinthepark.com/ https://novehiclesinthepark.com/
  • rchaud 3y ago
    It's not like there are any real consequences if they don't get it right. Deepfake ads already exist on YT.
    • asadotzler 3y ago
      Certainly there are if YouTube wants to continue to do business in the EU.
• 111111101101 3y ago
  We can't have the proles misrepresenting reality the same way that the rich have been doing for the last century. Rules for thee but not for me.
  • paulpauper 3y ago
    We cannot have fake content on youtube now! No way.
• rchaud 3y ago
  Google of yore would have offered a 'not AI' type of filter in their advanced search. Present day Google is too busy selling AI shovels to quell Wall St's grumbling, to even consider what AI video will to do to the already bad 'needle in a haystack' nature of search.
  • exodust 3y ago
    A "not AI" filter is an excellent idea.
    • dorkwood 3y ago
      Adding before:2020 to the end a query is a fairly good approximation. Note that this will become less useful over time, however, as Google prunes old results from its index.
• bgirard 3y ago
  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 seem reasonable. But I think over time the line will move, be unclear and we'll end up like prop 65 anyways.
  • bombcar 3y ago
    This is exactly what will happen, just like with cookie warnings, etc. To be effective, warnings like this have to be MANDATED on the item in question, and FORBIDDEN when not present. Otherwise you stick a prop 65 "may contain" warning on everything, and it's pointless. (This post may have been generated by AI; this notice in compliance with AI notification complications.)
    • Jensson 3y ago
      The "sponsored content" tag on youtube seems to work very well though. Most content creators don't want to label their videos sponsored unless they are, I assume the same goes for AI generated content flags. Why would a manual content creator want to add that? > This post may have been generated by AI I doubt "may" is enough.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • nemomarx 3y ago
        I think the concern is people might use the label out of caution if Adobe has some automatic AI enhancement in your video editor or whatever?
        • wongarsu 3y ago
          That would be either poor understanding or poor enforcement of the rule, since they specifically list stuff special effects, beauty filters etc as allowed. A more plausible scenario would be if you aren't sure if all your stock footage is real. Though with youtube creators being one of the biggest groups of customers for stock footage I expect most providers will put very clear labeling in place.
• duxup 3y ago
  Going to be a long road with this kinda thing but forums and places I visit often already have "no AI submissions" type rules and they have been received pretty well that I've seen. Are they capable of enforcing it? I don't know, but it's clear users understand / don't like the idea of being awash in a sea of AI content at this point. If they can actually avoid it remains to be seen.
• asciimov 3y ago
  Will this cover all those product "review" videos that are clearly reading some copy or amazon reviews?
• dmje 3y ago
  I suspect it’ll get me downvoted but this newish trend of using this grammar syntax drives me nuts. It’s “YouTube now requires YOU to” not “YouTube now requires to”. It’s lazy, it’s grammatically incorrect and it doesn’t scan.
• dwighttk 3y ago
  Title seems to be missing “creators”
• elif 3y ago
  based on how it takes them 48+ hours to take down fake elon musk crypto doubling scams that get reported, i doubt this will help anyone.
• idatum 3y ago
  > 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 video. For example, there is a video about a tornado that passed close to a content author and the author posts video captured by their phone. In the preview image, you see the author "literally getting sucked into a tornado". Is that "altered and synthetic content"?
  • NoPicklez 3y ago
    I don't think they need to be treated the same. The thumbnail isn't the content itself necessarily.
    • cdrini 3y ago
      Yeah I agree; and it's generally a bit harder to communicate _too_ much misinformation in a thumbnail.
• Devasta 3y ago
  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.
  • munificent 3y ago
    > 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".
    • danlugo92 3y ago
      The fact that it cannot self-feed will take care of this anyways.
  • sumedh 3y ago
    > If it wasn't worth your time creating it Once something like Sora is available to the public, its going to be game over. A new bunch of creators will use it to "create" videos and I am sure you will change your mind then.
    • Devasta 3y ago
      "Game over". Typical, people who don't want their feeds filled with AI generated pigswill are to be defeated, not persuaded.
      • sumedh 3y ago
        You can keep fighting all you want but in the end you will lose.
• paul7986 3y ago
  All websites and all for profit AI companies must add and then display AI watermarks otherwise nothing can truly believed online and offline too
• thomastjeffery 3y ago
  It's as if everyone in the world just forgot that fraud has been illegal the whole time.
  • paulddraper 3y ago
    Fraud is a very specific thing. Namely it requires payment under false pretense
• lawlessone 3y ago
  So how do I report the ones that don't? I have a whole lot of shorts content to report..
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• RyEgswuCsn 3y ago
  This is somewhat expected to be honest. I am rather pessimistic on the future solutions to such issues though. I can see only one possibility going forward: camera sensor manufactures will either voluntarily or forcibly implement hardware that inject cryptographic "watermarks" to the videos produced by their cameras. Any videos that do no bear valid watermarks are considered potentially "compromised" by GenAI.
• dbg31415 3y ago
  This will just result in a pop-up before every video, like the cookie warnings, “Viewers should be aware that this video may contain AI-generated or AI-enhanced images.” And it’ll be so annoying…
• omoikane 3y ago
  > Creators must disclose content that [...] Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur This may spoil the fun in some 3D rendered scenes. For example, I remember there was much discussion on whether a robot throwing a bowling ball was real or not[1]. Part of the problem has to do with all the original tags (e.g. "#rendering3d") being lost when the video spread through various platforms. The same problem will happen with Youtube -- creators may disclose everything, but after a few rounds through reddit and back, whatever disclosure and credit that was in the original video will be lost. [1] https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1146431221876105216 https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1146431221876105216 https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1147870621713543168 https://twitter.com/TomCoben/status/1147870621713543168
• brikym 3y ago
  YouTube now requires to label their realistic-looking videos made using AI * * Unless you're a powerful state actor then your videos are always 'real'.
• whoopdedo 3y ago
  I'd like a content ID system for AI generated media. If someone tries to pass an image to me as authentic I can check its hash against a database that will say "this was generated by such-and-such LLM on 18 Mar 2024." Maybe even add a country of origin.
  • zhoujianfu 3y ago
    These guys are doing something sort of in that vein.. https://wolfsbane.ai/ https://wolfsbane.ai/
  • okanat 3y ago
    Well, it is software. So one can remove such patterns and generate a completely different hash or even train a model to specifically do that. It doesn't scale.
• meindnoch 3y ago
  Or else?
• twodave 3y ago
  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.
  • danlugo92 3y ago
    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 3y ago
      [deleted]
• airspresso 3y ago
  No mention of clearly labeling ads made using AI. The deepfake Youtube ads are so annoying. Elon wants to recruit me to his new investment plot? Yeah right.
• stevage 3y ago
  I predict that this kind of labelling will disappear before long and in a couple of years will look ridiculous.
• micheljansen 3y ago
  The cynic in me thinks this is just Google protecting their precious training data from getting tainted but I’m glad their goals align with what’s better for consumers for once.
• sheepscreek 3y ago
  While their intentions are good, the solution isn’t. There’s a lot that they have left to the subjectivity of the creators. Especially for what is “clearly unrealistic”.
• scotty79 3y ago
  This label will be mostly misleading. Absence of the tag will give false sense of veracity and presence of it on non-ai generated materials will discredit them. Fact checking box like on twitter would be better and if you can't provide it, don't pretend you know anything about the content.
• hansonpeter 3y ago
  [dead]
• CatWChainsaw 3y ago
  "Requires". It will rely on the honor system, which sleazy assholes won't honor; or the report system, which people will abuse. AI detectors aren't reliable; GenAI is basically tautologically defined as hard/impossible to detect and we keep getting reminded that "it will only get better". Everyone calls this a problem, but it's a predicament because it has NO solution, and I have nothing but contempt for everyone who made it reality.
• primeradical 3y ago
  Does YouTube know that the Google Photos team actively encourages altering your videos and photographs to represent scenes that never happened? https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-features-pixel-8-pro/ https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-features-p... https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-magic-editor-pixel-io-2023/ https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-magic-edit...
• codedokode 3y ago
  And what if someone doesn't label the video? What if someone has drawn a fake video in Photoshop? The whole requirement to label AI-generated videos is dumb. Typical decision from some old politician who doesn't understand anything in AI or video editing and who should have retired 20 years ago instead of making such dumb rules. Why movies are not labeled but AI video must be labeled? What about comedians impersonating politicians? If Google or govt is afraid that someone will use AI-generated videos for bad purposes (e.g. to display a candidate saying things that he never said) then they should display a warning above every video to educate people. And popular messengers like Telegram or video players must do the same. At least add a warning above every political and news videos.
• blobbers 3y ago
  Well, that's reassuring that youtube can't tell on its own /s.
• barfbagginus 3y ago
  Actually love AI content! Been a member of the Cursed AI group on Facebook, and now non-AI images just look boring to me! So this announcement begs the question: is there any way to search for just AI content?
• Joel_Mckay 3y ago
  Or more likely, google wants a labeled dataset to improve their own training projects. =)
• ziofill 3y ago
  Rather than tagging what’s made up, why not tag what’s genuine? There’s gonna be less of it than the endless mountain of generated stuff. I’m thinking something as simple as a digital signature that certifies e.g. a photo was made with my phone if I want to prove it, or if someone edits my file there should be a way of keeping track of the chain of trust.
  • asadalt 3y ago
    yeah expect this to flip. i am guessing this will go like “https” path. first we will saw green lock for https enabled sites, later we saw insecure for http sites.
  • cdrini 3y ago
    This would I think be the ideal if it's possible. I'd love videos to have signatures that prove when it was recorded, that it was recorded from so and so a phone, that it hasn't had any modification, and maybe even optionally the GPS location (for like news organisations, to even more reliabily prove the validity of their media). And then have a way to have a video format that can allow certain modifications (eg colour grading), but encode that some aesthetic changes were made. And, more importantly, a way to denote that a region of video is a clip of a another video, and provide a backing signature for the validity of the clip. That would allow a much strong verifiability of media. But I'm not sure if that would be possible...
• creatonez 3y ago
  Any links to videos that currently have this status?
• Joehughes4041 3y ago
  [dead]
• bandrami 3y ago
  This has definite RFC 3514 energy
• cottsak 3y ago
  > Risks of not disclosing > It can be misleading if viewers think a video is real, when it's actually been meaningfully altered or synthetically generated to seem realistic. > When content is undisclosed, in some cases YouTube may take action to reduce the risk of harm to viewers by proactively applying a label that creators will not have the option to remove. Additionally, creators who consistently choose not to disclose this information may be subject to penalties from YouTube, including removal of content or suspension from the YouTube Partner Program. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491 This is censorship. That's all.
• dorkwood 3y ago
  This isn't fair. If I make a video using AI, who is to say whether it's anymore real than a video taken with a camera? You think what a camera captures is reality?
• NoPicklez 3y ago
  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.
• acituan 3y ago
  It might take 50 years to awaken to the abuse of power going on here. Forget individual videos for a second and look at youtube-the-experience as a whole. The recommendation stream is the single most important "generative AI" going on ever, using the sense of authenticity, curiosity and salience that comes from the individual videos themselves, but stitching them together in a very particular way. All the while the experience of being recommended videos being almost completely invisible. Of course this is psychologically "satisfying" to the users - in the shortest term - because they keep coming back, to the point of addiction. (Especially as features like shorts creep in). Allowing the well of "interesting, warm, authentic audio & videos having the secondary gains of working on your psychological needs" being tainted with the question of generated content is a game changer because it breaks the wall of authenticity for the entire app. It brings the whole youtube-the-experience into question, it reduces its psychological stand-in function for human voice & likeness, band-aiding the hyper-individualized lonely person's suffering based content consumption habits. I know this is a bit dramatic, and for sure videos can be genuinely informative, but let's be honest, neither that is the entirety of your stream, nor that is the experience for the vast majority of the users. It will get worse as long as there is a mathematical headroom of making more money out of making it worse, that's what the shareholder duty is about. When gen-AI came about I was naively happy about the fake "authenticity" wall of the recommended streams breaking down thanks to the garbage of generated sophistry overtaking and grossing out the users. Kind of like super delicious looking cakes turning out to be made of kitchen sponges turning people off of cakes all together. I was wrong to think AI oligopoly would let the opportunity of having a chokehold on the entire "content" business, and here we are. (Also this voluntary tagging will give them the perfect live training set, on top of what they have.) Once the tech is good enough to generate video streams on the fly, so that all you need is a single livestream, that you won't even have a recommendation engine of videos and instead a team of virtual personas doing everything you could ever desire on screen, it is game over. It might already be game over. To get out of this the single most important legislative maneuver is being able to accept and enforce the facts that a) recommendation is speech b) recommendation is also gen-AI, and should be subject to same level of regulatory scrutiny. I don't care if it generates pixels or characters at a time, or slaps together the most "interesting" subset of videos/posts/users/reels/shorts out of the vast sea of the collective content-consciousness, they are just one level of abstraction apart but functionally one and the same: look at me; look at my ads; come back to me; keep looking at me.
• armatav 3y ago
  collecting training data
• Tioka001 3y ago
  Not bad? it helps users distinguish between reality and virtuality, the world is becoming more virtual though...
• bhasi 3y ago
  How do they plan to enforce this?
• TobTobXX 3y ago
  TikTok added the same switch a few days ago.
• IlPeach 3y ago
  Oh that's great so we can finally train AI on what human generated content is Vs content to discard.
• romanovcode 3y ago
  It would be amazing if users could opt-out of any videos that use AI content. The whole short-form farm is incredibly annoying to sift through.
• pompino 3y ago
  >in the future we’ll look at enforcement measures for creators who consistently choose not to disclose this information. Nothing of use here. As per the usual MO of tech companies they throw the responsibility back on the user. Sounds like yet another bullshit clause that they can invoke when they want to cancel you.
  • zuppy 3y ago
    call me cynic but i share the same thought. plus... unless we figure out a way to detect it, which we can't reliably do now at scale, this will be pretty useless. the ones who want to use it for profit will do whatever it takes, just the honest people will label it. i believe that this is even worse than to assume that everything is ai generated, as people without technical knowledge will trust that the labeling works.
• unwind 3y ago
  Meta: the word "creators" is sorely missing from the title, it should read something like "[...] now requires creators to label [...]"
• astro- 3y ago
  I’m wondering whether another motivation for this could be trying to keep the data set as clean as possible for future model training. Creating videos takes quite a bit of time. If AI video generation becomes widely available, pretty soon, there could be more AI content being uploaded to YouTube than human-made stuff. Presumably, training on AI generated stuff magnifies any artefacts/hallucinations present in the training set, reducing the quality of the model.
• sylware 3y ago
  A quiet feature of sora: It can base itself on an existing footage for modifications of this very footage....
• cseleborg 3y ago
  This is interesting because it highlights the trust we've always placed in real-looking images. It brings real-looking images down to the same level as text. It's always been possible to write fake news. We've never had to add disclaimers at the top of textual content, e.g. "This text is made to sound like it describes real events, but contains invented and/or inaccurate facts." We feel the need to add this to video because until now, if it looked real, it probably was (of course, "creative" editing has existed for a long time, but that's still comparatively easy to spot). It's the end of a media era, really.
  • Loughla 3y ago
    >We've never had to add disclaimers at the top of textual content, e.g. "This text is made to sound like it describes real events, but contains invented and/or inaccurate facts." I mean, yes we have? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclaimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_persons_fictitious_disclai...
• opentokix 3y ago
  How else is google able to train their competitor if they don't know if the video they are training on is real or not.
• whywhywhywhy 3y ago
  Will be meaningless within 3 years. The tide is clear and 50% of all pixels created will be traveling through these models by then. It’s obvious this tech will replace all vfx, lots of elements of a camera pipeline and eventually even video game rendering. The labelling will become to common it will mean nothing.
• electrondood 3y ago
  In an US election year when stakes are high, it's concerning that not every platform has a similar policy in place, now.
• slowhadoken 3y ago
  “requires”
• montag 3y ago
  s/requires to/requires creators to/
• dev1ycan 3y ago
  They're all garbage I'm tired of falling asleep and waking up to some ripped off youtube video that was altered with AI, often of large science channels, or the Elon Musk videos
• theknocker 3y ago
  [dead]
• washadjeffmad 3y ago
  While in the waiting room of my doctor's office, I noticed a few elderly patients playing videos of an obviously AI Joe Biden promising them free money and promoting a familiarly Trump platform, and they were /discussing/ it, as if it was real. Who manufactured the problem here? It isn't just that these systems exist solely for individuals to be selected for by vulnerability, but that the people best poised to protect them are so effectively excluded from any sign of it. What would it look like if we could see every ad meant for every audience from the same companies? What if we could just look up who was trying to target us? Is responsible, auditable advertisement impossible, or just not able to print money?
• KETpXDDzR 3y ago
  Great, now bad actors can label child pornography as AI-generated to avoid legal consequences. This label is worthless IMO. We're close or already at a point where it's impossible to distinguish between real and AI generated content. Any company offering "AI detection" are scammers. It's just plain not possible.