5 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoOfc. they don't mention it for big tech companies EU = Evil
- duringmath 3y agoYou'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 agoWhy should software be any different from aircraft?
- sylware 3y ago[flagged]
- apwell23 3y agoI 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.
- anigbrowl 3y agoI love cookie popups, I get to reject all kinds of marketing and tracking cookies.
- bgdam 3y agoSo you making good pay by enabling a scammer makes it totally okay for the scammer to operate? By extension of that logic, hitmen should no longer be persecuted provided they make good pay from it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ajross 3y agoSeems like this is sort of a manufactured argument. I mean, should every product everywhere have to cite every regulation it complies with? Your ibuprofen bottle doesn't bother to cite the FDA rules under which it was tested. Your car doesn't list the DOT as the reason it's got ABS brakes. The EU made a rule. YouTube complied. That changes the user experience. They documented it.
- contravariant 3y agoDoesn't seem that out of place for a blog post on the exact change they made to comply though. I mean you'd expect a pharmaceutical company to mention which rules they comply with at some point, even if not on the actual product (though in the case of medicine, probably also on the actual product).
- hnlmorg 3y agoIf the contents of my ibuprofen bottle changed due to regulatory changes, then it wouldn’t be weird to have that cited at all.
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoCertain goods sold in the EU are required to have CE marking to affirm that they satisfy EU regulations.
- nlehuen 3y ago+1 in France at least, food products must not suggest that mandatory properties like "preservative free" is unique. When they advertise this on the package, they must disclose it's per regulation. Source: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/denrees-alimentaires-regles-etiquetage https://www.economie.gouv.fr/particuliers/denrees-alimentair...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- supriyo-biswas 3y agoIndia is considering very similar laws as well (though not implemented at this time)[1], so it’s not just the EU. Also, if every applicable regulation had to be mentioned, it’d be a very long list. [1] https://epaper.telegraphindia.com/imageview/464914/53928423/undefined.html https://epaper.telegraphindia.com/imageview/464914/53928423/...
- hoffs 3y agoConsidering is different from actually something that should be enforced
- ysofunny 3y agoI have a more entertaining: "typical google, getting somebody else to give them training data in exchnage for free hosting of some sort"
- orbital-decay 3y agoLabeling AI-generated content (assuming it works) is beneficial for Google, as they can avoid some dataset contamination.
- airspresso 3y agoExcellent point. With more and more AI-generated content it will be key to be able to tell it apart from the human-generated content.
- alphazard 3y agoIs anyone else worried about how naive this policy is? The solution here is for important institutions to get onboard with the public key infrastructure, and start signing anything they want to certify as authentic. The culture needs to shift from assuming video and pictures are real, to assuming they are made the easiest way possible. A signature means the signer wants you to know the content is theirs, nothing else. It doesn't help to train people to live in a pretend world where fake content always has a warning sticker.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- RandallBrown 3y agoOne of Neal Stephenson's more recent novels deals with this concept. Fake news becomes so bad that everyone starts singing everything they create.
- pixl97 3y agoThis is about as realistic as the next generation of congress people ending up 40 years younger. We literally have politicians talking about pouring acid on hardware and expect these same bumbleheads to keep their signing keys safe at the same time. The average person is far too technologically illiterate to do that. Next time you go to grandmas house you'll learn she traded her signing key for chocolate chip cookies.
- RandallBrown 3y agoI imagine it would be something handled pretty automatically for everyone. If Apple wanted to sign every photo and document the iPhone they could probably make the whole user experience simple enough for most grandmas. Some people will certainly give away their keys, just like bank accounts and social security numbers today, but those people probably aren't terribly concerned with proving the ownership of their online documents.
- 3y ago
- Karellen 3y agoWhat if a real person reads a script that was created with an LLM? Does that count? Should it?
- airspresso 3y agoBlog post specifically mentions that using AI to help writing the script does not require labeling the video.
- Karellen 3y agoSorry, I wasn't entirely clear that I was specifically responding to the GP comment referencing the EU AI act (as opposed to creating a new top-level comment responding to the original blog post and Google's specific policy) which pointed out: > 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 Clearly "AI-generated text" doesn't apply to YouTube videos. But, it is interesting that if you use an LLM to generate text and present that text to users, you need to inform them it was AI-generated (per the act). But if a real person reads it out, apparently you don't (per the policy)? This seems like a weird distinction to me. Should the audience be informed if a series of words were LLM-generated or not? If so, why does it matter if they're delivered as text, or if they're read out?
- pier25 3y agoThank you EU!
- cmilton 3y agoI would take this a step further and make it required that companies create an easy way for users to opt-out of this type of content.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hnbad 3y agoUsually when a big corporation gleefully announces a change like this it's worth checking whether there's any regulations on that topic taking effect in the near future. On a local level, I recall how various brands started making a big deal of replacing disposable plastic bags with canvas or paper alternatives "for the environment" just coincidentally a few months before disposable plastic bags were banned in the entire country.
- Xeyz0r 3y agoI think many countries have started considering the legal regulation of using AI in any content