Meta will enforce ban on AI-powered political ads in every nation, no exceptions
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
This seems to be a policy of preventing people from using their specific tool to generate those kinds of ads. It doesn't seem to say anything about attempting to prevent people from using other tools (say, those from OpenAI) to generate those same ads.
AI detectors will (intentionally and unintentionally) end up being used in heavily ableist ways. Once it's ingrained in the zeitgeist, then we're stuck with it until it causes a scandal so big that it can't be ignored, and in the meantime it will harm millions, if not billions, of people.
AI image detection, even when it does work, will have an extremely short shelf life, as the model continue to improve. Remember when SD couldn't even reliably render hands with five fingers? Go try some image generation on the state of the art models and inspect the hands, you'll find that there are far fewer impossible hands than there used to be. This will only improve over time. What do you do when the state of the art models eventually overcome all these issues? What about when they become capable of rendering flawless text? What then?
It's like people who claim that they can tell you with 100% certainty whether an image was photoshopped. Bullshit.
And if true, is only temporary.
Any "tell" can be inferred by the descriminator which will the lead the generative process towards a work around
This debate did not start just last year, lol, it has been going on for years. There's a reason you can't just simply slap a discriminator on things and get away scot free.
It'll be an ongoing cat and mouse game for....as long as we can tell, probably.
(Also, the author mentioning the deconvolution checkerboard should be a dead giveaway that this debate has been raging for years, if you've had experience in the field over the last several years.)
Remember they know more about the exploitation of human emotion than any organization in human history. And remember what they did with that knowledge.
Their instinct is only to find a responsive signal. They give no consideration to consequence.
Even with the best intentions they’ll still cultivate rage because they have never discovered anything else. At this point they can never discover anything else.
Meta is an irredeemable organization. Reject them at every opportunity.
Title: "Meta will enforce ban on AI-powered political ads in every nation, no exceptions".
Sub-title: "With several nations expected to hold elections next year, Meta confirms its generative AI advertising tools cannot be used for campaigns targeting specific services and issues.".
The idea of preventing advertisers from using AI at all ("no exceptions") seems fairly absurd -- for example, if an advertiser asks ChatGPT to spell-check something a human wrote, how would Meta know that ChatGPT did the spell-checking? But if Meta's just trying to manage how people access its own tools, then that'd seem like a different scenario.
Presumably they mean that their tools couldn't be used directly, rather than not at all, though. For example, if Alice uses one of Meta's tools for some other declared purpose to spell-check a word that Alice'll then include in an ad that she'll ask Bob to deploy on Meta, then how would they detect such indirect usage? Though they might still try to detect their own tools' signatures on, say, images or longer bodies of text.
Is today the 1 of April ? And they will let selective political ads further, isn't it ?
For example, if I want to make a generically patriotic ad, and I generate a picture of an eagle holding a flag to use in an ad, that doesn't seem like an issue. On the other hand, if I want to make an image of Biden walking with a cane and do so through Photoshop, that does seem like an issue.
This maybe stops candidates for low offices with small campaign budgets from using cheap/free AI tools to do fakery, but anybody running for major office has more than enough money to hire someone to make whatever they want with Photoshop.
Seriously, any takers?
turns out "a minority of people with me" isn't that convincing of an argument