EU will mandate labels on authentic-looking AI content starting August 2

Maybe sometimes. But rarely. Usually value is in the actual stuff.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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!

- 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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Unlabeled doesn’t mean safe or legit.

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.

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?

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.

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.