| ▲ | EU enforces labeling AI generated content(euronews.com) |
| 52 points by nucatus a day ago | 29 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | nucatus a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| The actual EU regulation on labeling AI content: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-pract... |
| |
|
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think it's more accurate to say that the EU legislates labelling AI content. Enforcement is another matter, as we've already seen with things like WEEE. |
|
| ▲ | account42 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wonder if this will just end with "may contain AI content" labels on everything instead of achieving something useful. |
| |
| ▲ | boobsbr a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Like everything in California may cause cancer. | |
| ▲ | hananova a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | "May contain X" labels are usually not allowed here with some exceptions. This has some downsides (like deliberately adding allergens to food because it's impossible to make sure there are absolutely none) but in general you can't just hedge your way past regulations. | | |
| ▲ | petcat a day ago | parent [-] | | > in general you can't just hedge your way past regulations. 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. | | |
| ▲ | Semaphor a day ago | parent [-] | | And it clearly tells you something is run by sociopaths if they "care about your privacy and want to share your data with their 9999 closest friends, family, and partners". |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Xelbair a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Isn't the whole problem that it is impossible to determine if content is AI or not? Doesn't this make it impossible to prove under 'innocent untill proven guilty' unless you're really blatant about 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. |
| |
| ▲ | broken-kebab a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd say that for now LLM-generated content is detectable, still at least. But anyway, "proven guilty" doesn't work as many people seem to believe. Often, if not most of the times, courts deal with cases with no full direct information which 100% prove guilt or its absence. If enough pieces of general picture suggest something, it usually considered proven. 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" | | |
| ▲ | dgellow a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'd say that for now LLM-generated content is detectable, still at least. 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) | |
| ▲ | Xelbair a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | it's not about having 98% confidence. but 100% irrefutable proof. You can go to reddit and cherry pick coments, that are made before LLMs, that have that exact LLM style. | | |
| ▲ | broken-kebab 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I'm getting what is the point here. As I said, legal system rarely deals with 100%, it's not a requirement to make a law enforceable. Not telling the particular law is good or bad, just that "you can't certainly distiguish between human and LLM output" is not a strong argument against it. The conflict emerges when e.g. you are attributed words you have never said, or presented in a fake video, and there ways to argue about such cases in court other than just trying to analyze bit-by-bit, or doing histograms. | | |
| ▲ | Xelbair 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Simple - you need to assign blame, and you need to do it in a fair way. 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 | | |
| ▲ | broken-kebab 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Thanks, now I see. No, that's not how it works. If a legislation designates you as responsible, you can outsource compliance implementation, but not the responsibility itself. Banks can hire external companies to verify operations wrt embargoes, but if relevant authority found a violation, the most probable outcome will be penalty againt bank, not contractor. Moreover, at any time a bank may be ordered to demonstrate that they organized the whole process in such a way that they have substantial reasons to believe it works as required according to the current best practices (whatever it means), and be fined if they don't. Laws are quite often stupid, but placing blame is a honed process, and when the letters say they will kick your balls if anything, it's not easy to avoid this. Possibly we even will see publishers overrecation (as it observed in banking where clients or operations often blocked for no strong reason) and human content will be marked as LLM-produced, or "possibly LLM-produced" if they are given such option. Your concern about disadvantage to smaller players is not without reason as legally complicated environments often have such effect, but to be sure one needs to study the whole thing deeper. E.g. there could be exceptions for individuals/small companies. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | graemep a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Does it require innocent until proven guilty? Other standards. Not familiar with most EU countries, but common law countries have a balance of probabilities for civil cases. | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's impossible to determine whether a killing is a murder or not. We still do it. And it's easy to sidestep by doing the murder outside the country. |
|
|
| ▲ | reaperducer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Looking forward to all the AI bots on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, HN, etc to suddenly have a label added to their posts. 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. |
| |
| ▲ | kbelder 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why would any of those follow EU regulation? The bots aren't in Europe, and the companies don't reliably know who's a bot. | | |
| ▲ | reaperducer 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Why would any of those follow EU regulation? The bots aren't in Europe, and the companies don't reliably know who's a bot. 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NorthSouthNorth a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Honestly don't even know how to feel about this regulation. I think in principle I like it. If one uses AI to generate content on a topic and is not actually checking its accuracy, why not force them to label it. 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. |
|
| ▲ | ChrisArchitect a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132341 |
|
| ▲ | dzhiurgis a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What for? |
| |
| ▲ | nitwit005 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Natural response to internet stuffed full of fake humans promoting dubious supplements with potential health risks. | |
| ▲ | brettermeier a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | What not for? That people can't post AI fake stuff and pretend it's true. | | |
| ▲ | perarneng a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What if you find ex images that is not labeled should you assume its not AI? This will make everything not labeled as AI get more legitimate even though it's still at a similar level of trustworthiness. this a big problem. | | |
| ▲ | kbelder 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, this is my concern. We need to get to a point where everybody realizes that every image they see may be fake. Because that is and will continue to be the truth, regardless of legislation. |
| |
| ▲ | brainwad a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Similar regulations requiring tagging of sponsorships didn't do anything; people just got used to publicly posted content having that warning. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You will now be able to witness evolution akin to the one that "made in Germany" and "made in Japan" went through and in just short few years. Fun! |
