DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
57% Positive
Analyzed from 3005 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#content#label#more#https#authentic#don#something#already#let#media
Discussion (83 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
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.
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
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
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!"
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
1: It gives legal leverage against vectors of misinformation. Misinformation is tricky to combat legally and this is a first obvious measure that can be taken.
2: Reputation will become more important in the future, and if you are found to have repeatedly posted AI content claiming it is not it will damage you. Not to mention that users can point out the obvious discrepancy.
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.
Don't be stupid enough to let machines do your own thinking, treat them as a dishwasher.
Though honestly, still probably skip the LLM if you’ve any pride in your work; LLM-‘assisted’ docs are generally worse than those written by people.
The AI Scotsman fallacy.
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?
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.
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.
I'm not trolling. I'm thinking about how you practically define what you are proposing to regulate.
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?
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.
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.
What about Photoshop being driven by Claude Cowork? That my seem asinine, but it is a serious consideration
I found this definition here [1]
> ‘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;
But that barely clears anything up. Even worse, I would not include a simple user-prompted image generator under this definition, as it is not operating with any autonomy. Or, you interpret it so broadly that seam carving [2] is considered AI, let alone content-aware fill
[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_carving
Unlabeled doesn’t mean safe or legit.
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.
> 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
This way of thinking is a very efficient way of destroying your culture and civilisation.
Consciously labelling something as genuine / non AI incorrectly is fraud.
"Forgetting" to add an AI label is an error of omission.
Feels like the former is far more punishable than the latter.
- 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
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!
Look, there's a ton of places where you can display your AI code, products or comments. Why is it so damn important that no places remain for people who want to be aware of whether or not they are engaging with a human?
Why is it so important to you that users must not be aware?
Even the most ardent AI booster wants their slop to be viewed by human eyeballs, ironically.
Authentic voices are today being drowned in waves upon waves of AI slop spam. This is not quite censorship but the end effect is similar - human voice cannot be heard. Just this time not because someone stopped the human from talking, but because they as shouting 1000x louder instead, at pennies on the dollar it costs to create something truly valuable.
The same way I look at food labels to support local produce and those who don't try to trick me into thinking I am consuming something it's really not.
I personally wouldn't care for AI usage in icons, I don't put a lot of attention to them. Someone else might.
there is also nothing selectively about it, it applies to all deep fake equally
if you had read the article you would know that this is mainly about deep fakes and other deceptive content, not every use of an AI tool (e.g. line smoothing) requires an AI label, specifically it's only about content "generative AI" usage _in a context where it's potentially deceptive_.
> AI commissars who will decide which company will survive
a huge jump in logic not related to anything in this article
> I doubt EU will survive the next decade or two without major crisis or war tbh.
again unrelated, but any country which doesn't fights deep fake propaganda will most likely not survive as a democratic state of law, soo if anything this action increases the chance of survival
> Edit: Instead of downvoting, how about you try retorting?
- then maybe read the article properly, your comments put it highly in question you did
- also maybe don't have non logically sustained jumps in reasoning in your article, especially not when you jumps in reasoning come with tons of sarcasm
> I don't think I'm incorrect here. But maybe I am!
well yes, you have even missed the long known, explicitly pointed out sever threat deep fake propaganda is for any state and especially democracies. That is not a good bases for any argument.
Also passive aggressive edits are a good way to get even more down votes if anything.
Label doesn't prove anything. It just provides a false sense of certainty.
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.
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.