4 ms·

How 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 obv

How 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 2mo ago
If anything this an argument _for_ clearly labelling manipulated photos and AI generated depiction of supposedly real life events.
- mcv 2mo ago
  Yes, but without exceptions for satire and parody etc.
  - DarkNova6 2mo ago
    I'd argue that if a satire or parody is strong enough having a small watermark will not detract from its statement.
LelouBil 2mo ago
Look 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 2mo ago
  That 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 2mo ago
    "Varying levels of autonomy" So from image generators up to agents.
cyanydeez 2mo ago
the law will allow normal broadcast outlets to filter; so some of that will just be the pipeline. If you're talking about twitter, then yeah, that's a firehose of crap and there's no laws that'll stop the "owww, it was just a joke!"
Tade0 2mo ago
By the effect it has, among other things. Courts take into account whether the stated motive is believable.
seanmcdirmid 2mo ago
If it looks like slop, it’s obviously AI. If it looks like someone actually put some effort into it, or if it looks like “real”, then it needs to be labeled because you wouldn’t know it was AI otherwise?
zeusly 2mo ago
The law is phrased “real people” which doesnt mean people that exist or are famous but rather people in general. So ai images of people using your product or whatever are real people which have to be labeled.
InsideOutSanta 2mo ago
I often see this kind of comment on hn. I'm not sure if I'm suffering from confirmation bias, but I do think it's possible that a large proportion of people here think that laws should work like code. What happened is the input, some calculation happens, and the judgment is the output. But that's not how laws work. In this case, a judge would set some standards, like "would a reasonable person be confused by this", and would rule based on that. It won't matter overly much what the author thinks "anyone could see," but it's also not an entirely objective process with code-like rules. That's just not how most laws work.
- sjs382 2mo ago
  "The law is not autistic"
- figassis 2mo ago
  That would be nice, and what I woudl expect from judges. But from what I experienced and from what I've seen, real nuanced judgement happens rarely. Most often judges simply lean on technicality, they act like machines, and this is why laws are gamed. People companies who violate certain regulations always comply to the letter, but never to the spirit, and yet they often get a pass or a pocket change fine, why do you think that is?

DarkNova6 2mo ago

If anything this an argument _for_ clearly labelling manipulated photos and AI generated depiction of supposedly real life events.

mcv 2mo ago
Yes, but without exceptions for satire and parody etc.
- DarkNova6 2mo ago
  I'd argue that if a satire or parody is strong enough having a small watermark will not detract from its statement.

LelouBil 2mo ago

Look 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 2mo ago
That 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 2mo ago
  "Varying levels of autonomy" So from image generators up to agents.

cyanydeez 2mo ago

the law will allow normal broadcast outlets to filter; so some of that will just be the pipeline. If you're talking about twitter, then yeah, that's a firehose of crap and there's no laws that'll stop the "owww, it was just a joke!"

Tade0 2mo ago

By the effect it has, among other things. Courts take into account whether the stated motive is believable.

seanmcdirmid 2mo ago

If it looks like slop, it’s obviously AI. If it looks like someone actually put some effort into it, or if it looks like “real”, then it needs to be labeled because you wouldn’t know it was AI otherwise?

zeusly 2mo ago

The law is phrased “real people” which doesnt mean people that exist or are famous but rather people in general. So ai images of people using your product or whatever are real people which have to be labeled.

InsideOutSanta 2mo ago

I often see this kind of comment on hn. I'm not sure if I'm suffering from confirmation bias, but I do think it's possible that a large proportion of people here think that laws should work like code. What happened is the input, some calculation happens, and the judgment is the output. But that's not how laws work. In this case, a judge would set some standards, like "would a reasonable person be confused by this", and would rule based on that. It won't matter overly much what the author thinks "anyone could see," but it's also not an entirely objective process with code-like rules. That's just not how most laws work.

sjs382 2mo ago
"The law is not autistic"
figassis 2mo ago
That would be nice, and what I woudl expect from judges. But from what I experienced and from what I've seen, real nuanced judgement happens rarely. Most often judges simply lean on technicality, they act like machines, and this is why laws are gamed. People companies who violate certain regulations always comply to the letter, but never to the spirit, and yet they often get a pass or a pocket change fine, why do you think that is?