Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Move comments to source? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49124564
- This 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.by Simulacra
- Surely 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
- This 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!
by ericst - I don't see how these are contradictory. The battle for reality will only worsen and you likely need multiple failsaves.by DarkNova6
- People 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
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.
by kmfrk - Cookie banner 2.0
- My 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.
by wickedsight - You completely disregard practical implications.
Can you manually create images that were done via AI? Of course you can.
Can you create AI fake content and misinformation as easily with human labor as you can with AI? No.
Understanding this distinction answers whether you see the implications AI has on the future of democracies or not.
by DarkNova6 - AI 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.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?
by xgbi - > 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.
by tgv - Where 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.
by Hnrobert42 - In 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 (rules for size and contrast)
Here are the rules: 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.
by matsemann - EU 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.
by Sol- - I’m pretty sure the big techs get safe harbor in this, otherwise they would have to stop serving up third party content in the EU all together.by seanmcdirmid
- > 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.
by rsynnott - I'm surprised by the sentiment.
With enough money you can already buy attention and presence. Now you can even facilitate a fake discourse to claim legitimacy and steer manipulation into entirely new realms. If this is not counteracted not only will rogue nations destroy democracies even faster, but powerful corporations and rich individuals will also use this to increase their power further and damage simple consumers.
Nothing about this concerns any creative process.
by DarkNova6 - Makes sense. Same as "Made in XXX" label. Users have the right to know where the product was made and how synthetic the product is.by zkmon
- Label additions done by machines vs those by humans?
- Skip 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://blo...
by mosura - Every website will just add a global label somewhere in the pop-up they already have about cookies.by vasco
- 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.by figassis
- 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?by seanmcdirmid
- 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!"
by cyanydeez - By the effect it has, among other things. Courts take into account whether the stated motive is believable.by Tade0
- If anything this an argument _for_ clearly labelling manipulated photos and AI generated depiction of supposedly real life events.by DarkNova6
- 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.by zeusly
- 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)
by LelouBil - 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.