Hacker News Reader

Comment by thejarren | Hacker News Reader

I have mixed feelings about this.

For the past few months, I've been marking videos as "not interested" because they are AI-generated, and I can tell.

But the flip side is that as these tools become more prevalent, it's not immediately clear to me how this line will be defined.

If people are using AI to generate scripts but are still reading them, does that count? Or if they're using AI to generate the images but have written the script, does that count?

It just seems messy, but I'm glad they're taking at least an active approach to it. I also think it will be a sign of how Google as a whole will treat AI generated content over time.

View on HN

"it's not immediately clear to me how this line will be defined" I'm myself struggling with this as well, even more as a creator, than a consumer.

I just built an AI-generated fakenews app [1] (for fun) and it opened my eyes: we're playing with fire.

The tech is already there: a bit of roop (deepfake) + SadTalker (lipync) + chatGPT, etc and voila! Anyway can create realistic videos / music on the fly! It's both thrilling and terrifying.

AI's involvement in media production isn't just a technical footnote; it's a fundamental shift in the landscape of information and creativity. Just like we scrutinize the origins of our food, we need to dissect the genesis of our media.

What YT is doing here is a first small step. It's time for all tech giants to confront this reality head-on. We're at a crossroads, and the path we choose will redefine our relationship with technology, creativity, and truth.

[1] https://fakenews.me

Seems your site got hugged to death. Was interested in one of the 'random' generated items it could put out.

> I just built an AI-generated fakenews app [1] (for fun) and it opened my eyes: we're playing with fire.

Thats brilliant. You have to share details on how you built it!

The backend is made in bubble.io, and it uses a bunch of AI models via APIs: elevenlabs for the text-to-voice, some lipsync models (via replicate), a bit of deepfake (roop) for the host, a bit of chatGPT for the script generation

I think if you're asking those questions then you're ahead of where 99% of people are thinking about when they think about "AI" (as are most of the folks on this site by selection bias). I think as these tools mature and get included in more standard tools like Adobe is doing then the distinction will blur enough that there will be some new criteria. And at that point maybe people won't care enough to have that distinction. But right now, people care a lot and its (mostly) obvious enough, hence the policy.

It's pretty obvious if you click the link:

> We’ll require creators to disclose when they’ve created altered or synthetic content that is realistic, including using AI tools. When creators upload content, we will have new options for them to select to indicate that it contains realistic altered or synthetic material. For example, this could be an AI-generated video that realistically depicts an event that never happened, or content showing someone saying or doing something they didn’t actually do.

It's for faked realistic videos. Scripts are unrelated.

It's also for self-reporting? That means the worst won't bother to indicate that they're generated.

No, but it helps legitimize the hobby for people making covers or gamer presidents.

That means that when you report them for generating fraudulent data that's not clearly signposted, they can be banned.

what if you are writing the scripts and using text to speech to read the scripts, but the text to speech tools now have AI baked in them.

what if you are animating the content but using some tool with AI components in it.

Not only does it seem messy but in the long run not feasible.

The issue is mostly YouTube doesn’t want 10,000 people all hooking up text to speech feeding in every single fanfiction.net story or similar websites and then auto generating 10 billion hours of HD video that nobody is going to watch except by accident. Let alone people doing the same thing with pure AI songs etc.

Photoshop using “AI” in its clone tool doesn’t run into those kinds of issues.

Honestly, I don't think web platforms care about the artistic integrity or anything like that. It's more that they don't want to have to be the storage destination for anyone that can figure out how to hook up a video generator to a while(). This segment of the userbase has the ability to grow to be 99% of your resource usage overnight, and with video being the most expensive form of media, it just isn't practical to welcome them with open arms.

See also: why no consumer backup platform offers unlimited quantities anymore. It only takes like a couple hundred hoarders to bleed you dry, and those guys don't even stand to profit from the activity like the get-rich-quick youtube and kindle schemes are promising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com