6 ms·
EU will mandate labels on authentic-looking AI content starting August 2
- zkmon 3mo agoMakes sense. Same as "Made in XXX" label. Users have the right to know where the product was made and how synthetic the product is.
- RandomLensman 3mo agoLabel additions done by machines vs those by humans?
- DarkNova6 3mo agoAn obvious start would be that any such technology needs to have its own clearly visible watermark and removing it constitutes a crime.
- RandomLensman 3mo agoWhy and why would it need to be a crime? Again, we don't label machine additions, for example.
- DarkNova6 3mo agoYou will have to tell me how "labelling machine additions" is applicable at all as an example here. Unless your argument boils down to "computer doing things does not require labelling".
- RandomLensman 3mo agoThat is mostly my argument. I find "computer doing things" generally not a useful category and why here specifically doesn't have enough support. If there are some truly high risk gaps, then why no close them specifically?
- vasco 3mo agoEvery website will just add a global label somewhere in the pop-up they already have about cookies.
- mosura 3mo agoSkip to the end. Let the consumer verify that the product is the unmodified intention of the entity claiming to have produced it and let them decide if they trust it. Tangent: it is notable that certain variations of labelling of that sort would now be considered unacceptable by many: https://web.archive.org.au/awa/20240617043532oe_/https://blogs.slv.vic.gov.au/such-was-life/european-labour-stamps-on-australian-furniture/ https://web.archive.org.au/awa/20240617043532oe_/https://blo...
- kubelsmieci 3mo ago> Let the consumer verify .. and .. > and let them decide Isn't it naive thinking ?
- mosura 3mo agoNot remotely. Let people check authenticity of the source and make their own private decisions. The entire problem is fraud, and governments are hardly immune from that.
- danaris 3mo ago"Let the customer verify if the flour has asbestos in it, and decide if they trust it." "Let the customer verify if the car airbags were installed properly, and decide if they trust it. "Let the customer verify if the plant that produced the plastic in their grocery bags is dumping its waste products in the water nearby, and decide if they trust it." No. We have governments and regulations for a reason. It is utterly unreasonable to expect customers to verify everything themselves. We need clear, firm labeling laws for all kinds of products. There's no reason this should be different.
- mosura 3mo agoI look forward to you submitting all agency to your superintelligent AI overlords. For your own good, and the good of society!
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Yaqub_W 3mo ago"It is a matter not only of customer protection, it’s also a matter of democracy protection." Ensuring democracy by selectively censoring. I feel safer already. I better put AI label on every video I make as there is already AI in the supply chain of all the tech I use. All content contains AI now. Let's talk about AI commissars who will decide which company will survive. In fact, let's create a few an NGOs to help! NGO will tell commissar what he wants to hear, NGO will get rewarded and allowed to exist! I doubt EU will survive the next decade or two without major crisis or war tbh. Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about you try retorting? I don't think I'm incorrect here. But maybe I am!
- dudefeliciano 3mo agowhat's the alternative? Let our benevolent techbro oligarch overlords decide what is best for us?
- Yaqub_W 3mo agoI think there is no alternative that yields good results. Legacy media uses the argument that consumer already expects to be lied to and knows the content is for entertainment (TV news for example). I feel the same about AI content. Or should I be expected to blindly trust everything? I already have to critically think and filter everything already so why the distinction? I should try harder for some content and not another? Especially as AI gets better the distinction between AI and no-AI generated content gets blurrier. All I see is bureaucrats trying to grab more power over people's decisions and more money embezzled. Unelected people forcing rules on their subjects.
- DarkNova6 3mo agoNihilism is the path to death and destruction. Thinking this will makes you powerless and cedes control with those who have the most resources. It's easy to take yourself out of this equation, but it only makes everything worse. The trick is that they make you think that it couldn't get worse. But this is always false.
- PowerElectronix 3mo agoAnother step to make users dumb and blindly trusting of their regulators. I don't opose labeling AI content, I opose mandating it and giving users the false confidence that something without label is legit.
- HatchedLake721 3mo agoLet’s stop labeling cigarettes are bad, because people will start smoking cigars and think they’re safe. Unlabeled doesn’t mean safe or legit.
- abc123abc123 3mo agoLet's start labling everything. Let us label every cigarette individually, every single drinking glass, every single nail. No, people still smoke, drink and fornicate, despite all the labels. At some point, we should just let Brother Darwin sort out the thinking ones from the non-thinking ones, because at a too aggressive level of protection, society will stop working, and people will regress to children.
- DarkNova6 3mo agoThe non thinking ones have voting power too and they will burn this shithole down because they think some powerful people in nice suits act on good faith and should be given all the decisionmaking and resources. This way of thinking is a very efficient way of destroying your culture and civilisation.
- blackbear_ 3mo agoLabels did work in reducing harmful behaviors: > Participants drew on a range of risk discourses in framing their abstention or moderate drinking along the lines of health, wellness, wisdom and productivity. They reiterated social constructions of heavy or regular alcohol use as irresponsible, threatening and potentially addictive. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13709 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13709
- 3mo ago
- TrackerFF 3mo agoIf you have issues with having to label your GenAI slop as "AI made", I'm going to assume you are not trustworthy. Just label it.
- Sol- 3mo agoEU once again at the frontier of AI.. regulation. Hard to assess what this rule will actually accomplish. Ultimately AI will be involved in all creative processes going forward, so all pieces of media will have at least some basic AI disclaimer. At the same time, the bad actors that the EU is so paranoid about (Russians secretly undermining our democracy and other boogeymen) will obviously not use the label. But it's another tool in the EU's toolkit to arbitrarily enforce fines on big tech when politically convenient, of course. That's one thing we remain good at.
- rsynnott 3mo ago> Ultimately AI will be involved in all creative processes going forward What on earth makes you think that? Do you honestly think that literally all creatives will just start making lazy crap because… it’s cool? Because I can assure you, outside of this little corner of the internet, it very much is not. Proper authors, journalists and artists are, generally, not keen.
- mosura 3mo ago> Proper authors, journalists and artists are, generally, not keen The AI Scotsman fallacy.
- rsynnott 3mo agoIn this context by proper authors I mean authors published by real publishers, for a start. Generally, most are hostile to LLM writing. Also, like… why do you think people write books or make art? In the vast, vast majority of cases it is not to make money (virtually none of them do). It’s to _make_ something. Where’s the feeling of accomplishment in making them if you just told an LLM to shit something out? Like, who would bother?
- mosura 3mo ago> Where’s the feeling of accomplishment in making them if you just told an LLM to shit something out? Like, who would bother? Exactly. Find something else to do. From this perspective the mere existence of AI tools for this stuff devalues all competing possible results, whether the tools are used or not, simply because there will be so much possible everything (media wise) on demand to match the whims of any consumer so they lose interest.
- NordStreamYacht 3mo agoWhat is the definition of "authentic looking?"
- matsemann 3mo agoLaw isn't code. Intention and context matters. You don't need a precise specification to mandate something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
- dathinab 3mo agoIn general, in EU - law doesn't play "wording nitpicking", "Simon said" or similar nonsense. And this applies here, too. - law doesn't care about what you or any "specific" person thinks something means/looks. i.e. if you ask 1000 random people if something "looks authentic" and more then a very very small fractions says it is "authentic looking" then it is authentic looking (idk. what "more then a very small fraction" is, but 10% is definitely more) Honestly any honest interpretation of "do you try or thing a random person from the street might mistake it as authentic (based on the _looks_, not content)" is giving you a pretty good idea for what it means. (honest here == not definition nitpicking, not egocentric, not elitist, not defaultist, etc. ) But also most relevant: _This (authentic looking) is the wording of the article not the law/regulation._ This is mostly about content which tries to manipulate people with deep fakes. And stuff like it being clear if e.g. a AI backed voice translation was used, as there had been more then one or two cases of voice translations being wrong in a way you would attribute to malice for a human translator. E.g. Ai generated voice overs putting
- wickedsight 3mo agoMy biggest problem with this is that this regulation is only aimed at AI. It should be much broader and include any technology that can be used to make 'authentic-looking' content. Why should someone who's good at Photoshop or VFX be allowed to share fake stuff as real, but not someone who's good with AI? For many years we've been aware that edited models on magazine covers, Instagram and in ads are negatively impacting the well-being of (young) people, but we've never done anything about that. I consider this regulation incredibly hypocritical and full on populist because 'AI BAD!' and nothing else.
- tgv 3mo ago> incredibly hypocritical If that's all... If anything, it's lenient for AI. You can still spread all the mind poison you want, you just need to label it. > full on populist It's not populist. That's just a cheap frame.
- matsemann 3mo agoIn Norway ads already must specify if a person in it has been digitally altered (changed shape, smoothed skin etc). Quite funny with international ads getting these banners plastered over their face. Random example: https://imgur.com/a/t8zT37o https://imgur.com/a/t8zT37o (rules for size and contrast) Here are the rules: https://www.forbrukertilsynet.no/vi-jobber-med/merking-av-retusjert-reklame/forbrukertilsynets-veiledning-om-merking-av-retusjert-reklame https://www.forbrukertilsynet.no/vi-jobber-med/merking-av-re... Quite level headed and easy to follow. So no, editing contrast or whatever people think they're clever to point out doesn't count.
- Hnrobert42 3mo agoWhere does it stop? Should it include edits with a digital camera? What about black and white? I'm not trolling. I'm thinking about how you practically define what you are proposing to regulate.
- xgbi 3mo agoAI is capable of generating things that are nearly indiscernible from reality, with almost any input, be it adversarial or other. Photoshop at least involved some manual trimming and lengthy process that couldn't be applied to "literally anything you can thing of". See these: - https://www.instagram.com/p/DTDKbhflVRO/ https://www.instagram.com/p/DTDKbhflVRO/ - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8wvz427vo#:~:text=According%20to%20Google%27s%20SynthID%20watermark%20detector%2C%20the%20fake%20image%20was%20generated%20or%20edited%20with%20a%20Google%20AI%20tool https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8wvz427vo#:~:text=Accor... And many, many examples in day to day reporting. I'd rather have the laywork already there to punish sensationalist publishers that abuse AI to forge alternate realities than nothing. Manipulating information is going to be the plague of the post-GPT/post-Midjourney era. We are entering an era where trust if going to be hard earned, and I don't know how you can trust for-profit or politician/billionaire owned companies anymore. What prevents WaPo from manufacturing information?
- Dfol 3mo agoIt won't work. Most of the media you see in the near future (if not already) is going to be at least AI assisted. They're going to be overloaded by reports of AI generation not labeled as AI. I'm also curious, what about AI assisted media? If a company writes a full article, then uses AI to edit it a bit, does that need to be labeled?
- rsynnott 3mo agoI would hope so.
- tgv 3mo agoSpeed limits work nonetheless. A few hefty fines and most of it will stop.
- DarkNova6 3mo ago> It won't work. Maybe. But the rest of your post doesn't have anything to back this up. > I'm also curious, what about AI assisted media? If a company writes a full article, then uses AI to edit it a bit, does that need to be labeled? Why would it? The threat is mass generation of articles without any human oversights, and realistic looking images claiming occurrence of events that never hapened. Nobody cares about an AI typo and stylecheck.
- II2II 3mo agoI agree it won't work, albeit for an entirely different reason. There has been a shift towards labelling AI generated or AI assisted content by those who aren't attempting to mislead. Those who are attempting to mislead won't. As for AI assisted edits, the article is quite clear about the labelling covering AI generated content. If you "hire" the AI as an editor by asking it to check your grammar or point out weak arguments, then do the rewrite yourself, it almost certainly wouldn't be covered. It sounds like it wouldn't be covered if you asked it to apply edits for style either, just be sure to log the changes since it would clearly be in an AI's voice.
- johneth 3mo ago> Those who are attempting to mislead won't. Sure, but this mandate means that if they're caught (which isn't unlikely), they can be fined up to 3% of revenue (not profit). Many will be outside the EU's jurisdiction, but not all. Taken together, this will have a chilling effect, not stopping it entirely, but likely reducing it.
- mosura 3mo agoThis misses the forest for the trees. The important question is digital provenance so you can verify it came from the entity it claims; whether the entity you trust used AI is not the point. Plenty of people were not to be trusted before, only the EU would insist you trust and distrust who they say you should.
- amazingamazing 3mo agoCookie banner 2.0
- HelloUsername 3mo agoMove comments to source? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49124564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49124564
- xyzsparetimexyz 3mo agoSurely a better idea would be to focus on how we can idk, get camera firmware to cryptographically sign photos or somethin, and then have editing software apply a signature on top. Or at least encourage a system where theres a good chain of image provenance for photojournalists
- DarkNova6 3mo agoI don't see how these are contradictory. The battle for reality will only worsen and you likely need multiple failsaves.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- ericst 3mo agoThis is honestly not a bad idea. And could be done in parallel. I even think that it might not need a mandate, if camera manufacturers start making it as a marketing claim. Prove your work is authentic and not AI generated!
- kmfrk 3mo agoPeople have already tried this with C2PA, and it's not a perfect system. The main problem with these systems is that you risk certifying fake media, which is worse than uncertified fake and real media. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40313769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40313769 I do wish more people used basic watermarks on their media regardless - as in sloppy ffmpeg text. People are more likely to repurpose other people's older media than generate new media, and old time-y watermarks make that just slightly harder. Maybe a free app for uploading citizen journalism media that handles the watermarking with geo- and datemarking is the way to go.
- figassis 3mo agoHow do you define "trying to make it look authentic"? You make a deepfake of a politician saying a discriminatory joke, and the author will just say "It was obvious this was not intended to be authentic. Anyone could see it's out of character". But the message already influenced millions.
- DarkNova6 3mo agoIf anything this an argument _for_ clearly labelling manipulated photos and AI generated depiction of supposedly real life events.
- LelouBil 3mo agoLook at the written law. I found this definition here : > ... who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (deep fakes) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
- didntcheck 3mo agoThat text defines AI as such > ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments To me, this definition reads as only including "agentic" uses, or automated decision engines. An image generator does not operate with any autonomy. If you interpret the "input" part loosely enough to include it, then you'd likely include old and simple techniques like seam carving [1], which very few would consider "AI" in the contemporary sense [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_carving https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_carving
- LelouBil 3mo agoHere's the actual law : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng I feel like this should be linked in any discussion of any legal matter
- Simulacra 3mo agoThis is going to get very interesting, I could see some erroneously claiming something as AI and demanding that I have an AI label when it's not. I'm not sure how this is even enforceable.
- rsynnott 3mo agoMeta-commentary on this discussion: okay, I know the ‘hacker news’ thing has always been kinda a misnomer, and has gotten moreso. But it’s still kind of shocking to me how little people here value making something, versus pretending to make something. There’s value to actually doing stuff. The amount of “all artists will use AI to pretend to make stuff, because money” is honestly kinda bizarre, and completely misunderstands the motivations of most artists, writers and makers.
- Retr0id 3mo agoThe problem isn't the "real" artists, it's everyone else.
- kubelsmieci 3mo ago> There’s value to actually doing stuff. Maybe sometimes. But rarely. Usually value is in the actual stuff.
- artninja1988 3mo agoDoesn't look like this law has anything to do with (non photorealistic) art.
- DarkNova6 3mo agoRight? It strikes me that the vast majority of people complaining genuinely don't understand the difference between law and code, content and art or can think of anything beyond what they are facing in day to day work realities.
- joshspankit 3mo agoI believe we’re all struggling with the downstream effects of the attention economy that’s fed by leveraged debt. Online, the most money being made is by people who get attention. The making is not just secondary, in many cases it’s a calculation. Even genres that I enjoy as a maker for having real tactile value (repair, restoration, rug cleaning, etc) are inherently not profitable unless they are getting paid out by the video platforms. For artists this has created a wild set of conflicting constraints. Some can do the Patreon model but for those who don’t, they need attention in order to sell art in order to generate enough money to make art. In this world, AI lowering the barrier to entry means that we’re close to (if not already there) “artists” (aka people farming for money) soaking up all the attention and leaving none for the people who make things. It’s not that all artists will use AI to pretend to make stuff, it’s that all the pieces are there for a world where these money farmers will be the only visible type of artist.
- ChrisArchitect 3mo agoEU release: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_1714 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_26_...