EU enforces labeling AI generated content
euronews.com
euronews.com
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-pract...
Of course you can. The internet is absolutely polluted with cookie banners, including on the EU's own government websites, precisely for the reason to hedge your way past regulations.
Is it malicious compliance? Sure it is. But it's the EU's ill-conceived and misguided laws that have encouraged it.
And isn't this easy to sidestep via plausible deniability and using middleman outside of EU borders?
So bad actors, especially ones outside of EU, can just continue to operate as is and ones within can just outsource the 'bad' work outside.
AI disclosure makes sense, but it should be a short list in standardized label format.ie AI used for code, assets, text, etc.
The problem is what we(as society )try to sidestep: is to have content creators(including major traditional media) be held responsible for content they provide.
In the same way a suspect may be declared guilty when e.g. there were reasonable expectation to double check a published image, a possibility to do it, obvious benefits from spreading fakes. Even if that image is genuinely looking convincing.
Probably, eventually somebody will try to use it to silence real whistleblowing. And it's unclear how this will work at all with expected advancements of generation capabilities. But I believe there's a public demand for such law.
I expect pretense of uncertainty to be used to get around: "we got this video from unknown source and we are not sure if it's AI-generated, but look like how this politician f*cks a pig"
It’s really not, if someone spends a little bit of time to make something look human. For comments, literally say to your agent “write in the style of the HN user broken-kebab”, and it will pass pretty much any sniff test
(Cool nickname btw)
You can go to reddit and cherry pick coments, that are made before LLMs, that have that exact LLM style.
Any assingement of blame of using unauthorized LLM generated content could be shifted to external contractor(preferably outside of EU's jurisdiction) where you yourself had no awareness of it. Contract of course explicitly forbids LLM content and requires labeling.
This is and extremely basic loophole that gives enough plausible deniability to any sane publisher/content farm.
Now you need to prove they were aware of LLM content being generated, as they cannot rely on LLM content detection methods due to high amount of false positives.
Even easier if you publish content from people writing under pseudonyms/anonymously. It devolves into he said she said kind of situation, and burden of proof is on accusers side.
Basically depending on enforcement this system either:
- only punishes small players that cannot afford to setup such chain
- is used as an arbitrary excuse to shut some outlets if the system is corrupt
I have a vision of millions of social media "influencers" suddenly finding out they have three actual followers. And they're all their own grandmother.
Because the EU has a habit of fining companies anywhere on the planet, regardless of location. There's been several hundred discussions about it on HN over the last few years.
What practical benefits this might have in the long term I do not know. Perhaps an implicit trust in orgs/individuals who actively tag AI-generated content.
If one is known to tag AI-generated things as AI-generated, the un-tagged things have more weight as being original. To be honest I don't think this is a likely outcome.