6 ms·

From your comment's tone, it seems like this is supposed to be a bad thing. The only people who would be upset about this are folks who are trying to pass gener

by speff 3y ago

From your comment's tone, it seems like this is supposed to be a bad thing. The only people who would be upset about this are folks who are trying to pass generated content off as real. I'm sorry if I don't have much sympathy for them.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
"You have to tell people if you're lying" isn't a stupid rule because lying is good, it's a stupid rule because liars can lie about lying and proving it was the original problem.
- speff 3y ago
  The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Now there is. Finding out a video is maliciously fabricated is a different problem.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Of course there was. The community guidelines have prohibited impersonation and misinformation for years.
    - speff 3y ago
      From the report button on a youtube video: Misinformation - Content that is misleading or deceptive with serious risk of egregious harm. That sounds like a quagmire of subjectivity to enforce. You can argue whether generated content was created to mislead or whether it would cause _egregious_ harm. Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        You're acting like this is a court with a judge. The company makes up subjective rules and then subjectively enforces them. There was never any arguing to begin with, they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse. > Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here. How is this supposed to lead to less arguing? If there was an easy way to tell if something is AI-generated then you wouldn't need the user to tag it. When there isn't, now you have to argue about whether it is or not -- or if it obviously is, whether it then has to be tagged, because it obviously is and they've given that as an exception.
        speff 3y ago
        Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is less subjectivity with this rule. If the content is found to have been generated and isn't marked, then there are clear grounds to remove the video. What youtube does when there is doubt is not known yet. I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this".
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. They use (with some irony) AI and other algorithms to determine if you're breaking the rules, often leading to arbitrary or nonsensical results, which the review process frequently fails to address. > I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. It isn't a different problem, it's the problem. You want people to label things because otherwise you're not sure, but because of that problem exactly, you have no way of reliably or objectively enforcing the labeling requirement. And you specifically have no way to do it in the cases where it most matters because it's hard to tell.
  - poszlem 3y ago
    Of course, YouTube is well-known for its methodical approach to video removal, strictly adhering to transparent guidelines, rather than deciding based on the "computer says no" principle.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Knock knock Who's there dmcAI takedown notice!
  - frumper 3y ago
    It sounds like it could also be used to take down a video someone thinks is fake. Proving it may be easy in some cases, but in other's it may be quite difficult.
- mortenjorck 3y ago
  Yes. This is a legislative implementation of the Evil Bit.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  They can, but it's often possible to prove it later. If you have a rule against lying and it's retroactively discovered to have been broken, then you already have the enforcement mechanism in place. Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have laws at all, because people will break them and lie about it'.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > They can, but it's often possible to prove it later. If you have a rule against lying and it's retroactively discovered to have been broken, then you already have the enforcement mechanism in place. It isn't a rule against lying, it's a rule requiring lies to be labeled. From which you get nothing useful that you couldn't get from a rule against lying, because you'd need the same proof for either one. Meanwhile it becomes a trap for the unwary because innocent people who don't understand the complicated labeling rules get stomped by the system without intending any malice. > Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have laws at all, because people will break them and lie about it'. The generalization is that laws against not disclosing crimes are pointless because the penalty for the crime is already at least as severe as the penalty for not disclosing it and you'd need to prove the crime to prove the omission. This is, for example, why it makes sense to have a right against self-incrimination.
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  There are already various situations where lying is banned: depending on the circumstances, lying might count as perjury, fraud, false advertising, etc. It seems silly to suggest that these laws serve no purpose.
- kimixa 3y ago
  The same reason you have to check a box saying you're not a terrorist when entering the USA. It gives them a legal basis to actually do something about it when found out from other means.
- jameshart 3y ago
  Also, because telling fictional stories has always been one of the most common applications of video technology.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
Won't it be equally problematic for creators, particularly reporters/journalists, whose real content is misidentified as fake? This divide is obviously going to play out on two sides. Proving authenticity may turn out to be as difficult as proving fakeness. People will use this maliciously to flag and censor content they dislike.

by speff 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

"You have to tell people if you're lying" isn't a stupid rule because lying is good, it's a stupid rule because liars can lie about lying and proving it was the original problem.

speff 3y ago
The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Now there is. Finding out a video is maliciously fabricated is a different problem.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > The problem is that there wasn't a rule that could be used to take a misleading video down. Of course there was. The community guidelines have prohibited impersonation and misinformation for years.
  - speff 3y ago
    From the report button on a youtube video: Misinformation - Content that is misleading or deceptive with serious risk of egregious harm. That sounds like a quagmire of subjectivity to enforce. You can argue whether generated content was created to mislead or whether it would cause _egregious_ harm. Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      You're acting like this is a court with a judge. The company makes up subjective rules and then subjectively enforces them. There was never any arguing to begin with, they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse. > Now there's no more arguing. Is it generated or is it real - and is it marked if generated? I still fail to see the downside here. How is this supposed to lead to less arguing? If there was an easy way to tell if something is AI-generated then you wouldn't need the user to tag it. When there isn't, now you have to argue about whether it is or not -- or if it obviously is, whether it then has to be tagged, because it obviously is and they've given that as an exception.
      - speff 3y ago
        Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. One that I already mentioned 2 comments back. My point was that there is less subjectivity with this rule. If the content is found to have been generated and isn't marked, then there are clear grounds to remove the video. What youtube does when there is doubt is not known yet. I don't deal in "well this _could_ lead to this".
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > Youtube isn't some mom n' pop operation - they do have a review process and make an attempt at following the rules they set. They can ban you for any reason...but they generally don't unless you're clearly breaking a rule. They use (with some irony) AI and other algorithms to determine if you're breaking the rules, often leading to arbitrary or nonsensical results, which the review process frequently fails to address. > I'm not getting into the rabbit hole of finding out if it was actually generated - once again, that's a different problem. It isn't a different problem, it's the problem. You want people to label things because otherwise you're not sure, but because of that problem exactly, you have no way of reliably or objectively enforcing the labeling requirement. And you specifically have no way to do it in the cases where it most matters because it's hard to tell.
- poszlem 3y ago
  Of course, YouTube is well-known for its methodical approach to video removal, strictly adhering to transparent guidelines, rather than deciding based on the "computer says no" principle.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Knock knock Who's there dmcAI takedown notice!
- frumper 3y ago
  It sounds like it could also be used to take down a video someone thinks is fake. Proving it may be easy in some cases, but in other's it may be quite difficult.
mortenjorck 3y ago
Yes. This is a legislative implementation of the Evil Bit.
anigbrowl 3y ago
They can, but it's often possible to prove it later. If you have a rule against lying and it's retroactively discovered to have been broken, then you already have the enforcement mechanism in place. Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have laws at all, because people will break them and lie about it'.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > They can, but it's often possible to prove it later. If you have a rule against lying and it's retroactively discovered to have been broken, then you already have the enforcement mechanism in place. It isn't a rule against lying, it's a rule requiring lies to be labeled. From which you get nothing useful that you couldn't get from a rule against lying, because you'd need the same proof for either one. Meanwhile it becomes a trap for the unwary because innocent people who don't understand the complicated labeling rules get stomped by the system without intending any malice. > Really, your argument can be generalized to 'why have laws at all, because people will break them and lie about it'. The generalization is that laws against not disclosing crimes are pointless because the penalty for the crime is already at least as severe as the penalty for not disclosing it and you'd need to prove the crime to prove the omission. This is, for example, why it makes sense to have a right against self-incrimination.
School-Cotton 3y ago
There are already various situations where lying is banned: depending on the circumstances, lying might count as perjury, fraud, false advertising, etc. It seems silly to suggest that these laws serve no purpose.
kimixa 3y ago
The same reason you have to check a box saying you're not a terrorist when entering the USA. It gives them a legal basis to actually do something about it when found out from other means.
jameshart 3y ago
Also, because telling fictional stories has always been one of the most common applications of video technology.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

Won't it be equally problematic for creators, particularly reporters/journalists, whose real content is misidentified as fake? This divide is obviously going to play out on two sides. Proving authenticity may turn out to be as difficult as proving fakeness. People will use this maliciously to flag and censor content they dislike.