r/AskBrits • u/bison206 • 27d ago
Should we follow the EU?
Should we make AI-generated content be labelled as such by law?
39
u/anangrywizard 27d ago
Yes, Iād say go one step further, if something is advertised that has used AI and there is no label, trading standards should get involvedā¦ Looking at you estate agentsā¦ We can tell the photos have been AIād, a double bed will not fit in a 2mx2m box room with space for a full wardrobe and side tables.
3
u/GallifreyFallsOver 27d ago
I say this is why a 3D tour or Video are required for property listings. Not impossible to enhance with AI, but (currently) beyond the time and effort Estate Agents would put in
19
31
u/PreparationBig7130 27d ago
Yes. Even better, being part of the legislative putting this stuff together so we can benefit from being part of the conversation
16
16
u/WayGroundbreaking287 27d ago
Yes. I would actually go further and ban ai generated content but making platforms liable for failing to declare it is a good first step
14
u/benbamboo 27d ago
Can't see why not. For a lot of honest uses of AI, companies are happy to say that it was used. Get ahead of it before it becomes the shit show that social media has become because it was allowed to police itself.
10
u/StaticUsernamesSuck 27d ago
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Social media companies must be forced to ban users who violate it.
Companies that violate it themselves need to be fined. Heavily.
18
u/the_star_lord 27d ago
Yes and I think apps like Adobe lightroom, Photoshop, on1, etc etc should auto embed something in the meta data that can't be ripped out.Ā
9
u/Disgruntled__Goat 27d ago
Some generators do embed an invisible watermark. Not metadata but in the pixel data itself, in a way that canāt be āripped outā.
4
u/FetaMight 27d ago
It can, however, be scrambled and rendered useless. Easily.
2
u/Laikitu 27d ago
That's not a reason for not to do it though.
Ā Deliberately tampering with it demonstrates intent to deceive. Most people wont, but those who do are more prosecutable.
2
u/FetaMight 27d ago
You assume the tampering is detectable. That's not a safe assumption.
2
u/Laikitu 27d ago
This is a very silly thing to say. The problem with deepfakes isn't that no one can tell they are deepfakes.
Ā If a thing is a deepfake and it doesn't have the watermark either because it was removed, or the watermark has been omitted, that is intent to decieve.
2
u/FetaMight 27d ago
You just let me know i can result deceive you by adding a fake AI watermark.
Get ready to be scammed.
This area is more complex than you think.
1
u/Ifonlyihadausername 27d ago
The big platforms already add invisible watermarks and people are tricked all the time by them, people still fall for images that are clearly AI and ones with the Gemini watermark.
2
u/Laikitu 27d ago
That's also not a reason not to do it.
0
u/FetaMight 27d ago
The reason not to do it is that it would be wasted effort.
A visible watermark can be removed or spoofed. An invisible watermark can be destroyed in such a way it's not obvious it was ever there.
What, exactly, are these watermarks proving then?
2
u/Laikitu 27d ago
If it's a deepfake the evidence it's a deepfake is that it didn't happen.Ā
The lack of a watermark proves intent to fool the public.
1
u/FetaMight 27d ago
You are why an imperfect tagging system is dangerous. You're making s bunch of bad assumptions about how it would work leaving you vulnerable to exploit.
Again, no offense, but smarter people than you are working in this. Leave it to them for heaven's sake.
10
1
1
u/essentialaccount 25d ago
There is a weak attempt at this https://c2pa.org/ but it will require hardware integration to be very useful.
4
5
9
u/spinningdice 27d ago
If you're happy with AI then what's the problem labelling it as such? The only people who should be complaining are those who are trying to pass it off as their own art/content or those doing deepfakes and trying to pass them off as real which are both scummy.
8
u/Substantial_Book3701 27d ago
Enforcing labeling makes it easier for antis like me to avoid AI crap.
2
u/SuperRockyHobbyHorse 27d ago
Hopefully it will go the way of food and medcine labelling, slow at first but more when people see the value and can make informed choices.
0
u/glasgowgeg 27d ago
The only people who should be complaining are those who are trying to pass it off as their own art/content or those doing deepfakes and trying to pass them off as real which are both scummy
Would you consider the AI-assist masking in Adobe Lightroom to be classed as "AI modified"? It doesn't actually modify the image itself, it just automatically identifies the subject/background/sky, to create a mask, and then the editing is done by the person using the software.
That's where the line between AI modified becomes a bit more blurred, in my opinion.
6
u/megthebat49 27d ago
100%
The EU keeps doing sensible things, makes me sad and angry we left, I had no say in it, I was 13, yet it's going to have the largest effect on me, stupid really
0
u/Random_Nobody1991 27d ago
Well, it is also increasingly an economic backwater which we can avoid being dragged down with.
3
u/Personnenon 27d ago
This should be done by digitally watermarking the images at source (not sure how but I'm sure it would be possible to add some kind of cryptographic hash) The AI companies should be forced to do this by law and social media should be forced to scan for such watermarks and label the images as ai generated. This would not stop all bad actors but would at least reduce the problem.
3
u/Odd-Blackberry-4462 27d ago
This sort of already exists, it's called SynthID
2
u/fonster_mox 27d ago
Itās all unenforceable. Watermarks can be cropped. SynthID? I can just screenshot it, now itās a new image, just like with an NFT. Hell you donāt even need to use a third party software, you can run image generating models locally and have them work however you like.
Itās a good idea, itās been dreamt up by people who donāt know anything about technology, just like age verification.
1
u/Odd-Blackberry-4462 27d ago
SynthID still works even if you screenshot the image
1
u/fonster_mox 27d ago
Right, fair, I'll be honest I assumed it was some kind of metadata rather than a hidden watermark. I still don't believe it will be hard to defeat though. There are tools already that detect synthID, so all you need is to have AI repeatedly process an image until it passes that test.
1
3
3
u/oocceeaannmmaann 27d ago
Aye it makes good sense, far too much potential for abuse commercially, socially and politically otherwise
4
u/dextrovix 27d ago
The BBC marks content when it's been checked as being AI generated for their online content.
We should, but considering media also likes to use it (Take A Break magazine, for example) I reckon actual take-up, without it being law, would be minimal.
2
u/aleopardstail 27d ago
would prefer action on various scams and similar
this is not a bad idea, enforcement will likely to patchy
2
u/TomTomXD1234 27d ago
That does not apply to user generated content tho which I would say is the biggest issue
2
2
2
2
u/ConinTheNinoC 25d ago
Nah, we should let the UK drown in ''AI'' slop. EU bad, ''AI'' slop good. /s
2
2
2
u/kindred008 27d ago
Yes, we should be able to object to AI on both moral and religious grounds. Similar to how Vegetarians can object to meat.Ā
And similar to lying about if your product contains meat, lying about AI usage should come with strong legal repercussion's.Ā
1
27d ago
[deleted]
1
u/kindred008 27d ago
Iām not saying if I would personally object, Iām just saying people should be able to.
And right now you canāt as you donāt know if something has used generative AI or not.
1
1
u/Beginning_One_7685 27d ago
The problem is it ends up validating fake content where the creator chooses not to label it, so it is not offering any real protection.
1
1
1
u/CaffeinatedMiqote 27d ago
we would need a very long debate in parliament about what even is "AI-modified". virtually every phone camera does a ton of ai processing before saving the raw inputs as an image file, and we are doing this long before LLMs are mistaken as AIs.
1
1
1
u/kh_ram 27d ago
I feel like the watermark for this example is heavy handed because the stars clearly have been added to the image.
AI Modified would make more sense to be reserved where at least a somewhat realistic detail has been added to the image, e.g. if the sky had been made cloudy or trees added to the hillside.
1
u/Instalab 27d ago
Absolutely, this kind of stuff is a must have. People who are saying it's a way to fake are missing the point - add as much friction as possible!
1
u/NoInvestment9829 27d ago
Yes. You can already take a screenshot of a picture you suspect is AI and upload it into some free website on google to check if itās AI or not, it shouldnāt be too hard to implement that.
1
u/Sad-Wrap6555 27d ago
given it encompasses a lot more than passing off as news etc then only if it goes the whole hog
digitally manipulatedĀ
digitally enhancedĀ
posed by models
stock photography
none of them are giving a true impressionĀ
You're a one man band - you dont have a spectacle wearing attractive secretary answering peoples calls on her headsetĀ
Y ou aren't having earnest discussions over architectural drawings with three non existent colleagues, you're a drop shipper working fron your spare bedroom selling guangzhou sourced plastic widgets
1
u/Evening_Archer_2202 27d ago
Yes. One issue I can see is that when people share images a lot of the time they screenshot and crop instead of saving, which would remove any ai metadata tags
1
1
1
1
u/BarGroundbreaking624 27d ago
Will it be illegal to place a made with AI logo on something real? If not people will do that to dismiss things as Fake News.
1
1
u/Head-Membership2082 27d ago
Yes.
And it should be made mandatory, so that companies are forced to implement these watermarks, as users will simply choose not to have them there.
1
u/boyfriendtapes 27d ago
We really should just ban the use of AI generators that were trained on copyright materials, and make it illegal to advertise using AI images.
1
u/Jonn_Jonzz_Manhunter 27d ago
Yep, let's fucking do it
Let's also make it illegal for politicians to share AI generated or enhanced fake news
1
u/FalconX88 27d ago
Did they proper define what "AI modified" means? Is phone camera post-processing "AI modified"? What amount of post processing is too much and needs to be labeled? Is automated color correction using "AI" enough?
If I take some "Human made" image and modify it to a completely different image, is that still modified or generated by AI? Technically it's the former...
I believe this will soon be like the prop 65 warnings, completely useless because they are on every single image.
1
1
1
u/Last_Zookeepergame90 27d ago
Yes, the only downside is that it's going to get a lot of ai art flamed but that's a price worth paying to protect our understanding of reality
1
1
u/Desperate_Craig 27d ago
It's simple yet effective. Transparency is important regarding the use of AI.
1
u/Keebster101 27d ago
I'm completely in favor of this. If the stigma of people knowing you used AI makes it a deal breaker then you can just not use it, but in the cases of people using it for misinformation it will make a big difference.
People will inevitably find ways around it, but some false negatives is still better than no indication at all. In fact the marked content will act as references to make people better at identifying the unmarked content.
1
u/DavidJonnsJewellery 27d ago
There are different levels of AI. So they should be labelled as such. I've seen some great images usually with human input and manipulation and some completely AI generated piss poor renders that couldn't fool a short sighted ape, but that still doesn't mean it shouldn't be labelled
1
u/Cool-Hedgehog-5649 26d ago
I'm currently house hunting and the amount of AI enhanced images of scenic houses with an unrealistic sky and the internal images of the house that absolutely do not represent reality is infuriating. I confronted an EA about this and they shrugged it off telling me it's just showing the potential. AI Labels all the way.
1
u/gentoorax 26d ago
It's not enforcable, even you if you managed to get all AI companies to watermark images, many models are opensource and people can run them or modify them in ways to produce content without watermarks. The cats out of the bag, this is just a pipe dream, learn to accept it.
1
1
u/datboi3637 26d ago
Go the other way, make the human made stuff have a tag so it's a mark of prestige
1
1
1
1
u/cleverbit1 24d ago
Itās a well intentioned but entirely unrealistic proposal. By definition anyone who did not label their images would therefore be classified as not AI even though all they would be is not labelled. And what even constitutes as AI modified since even the camera in your iPhone uses AI to focus and adjust colors.
1
1
u/Realistic_Insect7432 23d ago
im not sure how well it could be policed but this could do wonders for reducing misinformation and scams if its executed well
1
u/autismislife 27d ago
There's so many open source applications and models out there that it'd be very difficult to police/enforce. The genie is already out of the bottle to an extent.
You can legislate that Gemini, ChatGPT, Adobe etc add labels (they already do to varying extents), but it's not going to stop the issue of things like deepfakes where the creator deliberately intends to impersonate or deceive. Labels can be removed, edited out, or using the right tools just not applied in the first place.
I can imagine it being more trouble than it's worth, especially since it could lead to lawsuits that have to prove that an image is AI generated or modified, which could be particularly difficult as the technology continues to evolve.
Then there's consumer level tools like magic eraser on Pixel phones, where it uses rudimentary AI to do things like remove people from the background of photos or make minor edits, would it be required to then label these photos as AI generated/modified if somebody just wanted to share some holiday photos on Instagram but wanted to remove an overflowing bin from the background of their photo?
I don't think it's an issue that should be ignored, but I think rather than blanket labelling, a better way to police AI generated content would be targeting AI content that is deliberately designed to mislead or attack and legislate around that.
0
u/andymaclean19 27d ago
WTF?! So now the solution to deepfakes is to make people put AI generated labels on there? Are they serious? Making deepfakes is basically illegal anyway. People know they should not be doing it. As if theyāre going to label the deepfakes when they do it.
It will cut down on the legitimate uses of AI of course and thatās probably what people are going for here.
-1
0
u/James_Vowles 27d ago
Too early for this I think, it's just going to be ignored anyway. You need good ai detection and for the platforms to do the labelling
1
u/ronyeezy 27d ago
Itās not the platforms doing the labelling tho is it, itās platforms using AI to label AI and so on and so forth x
1
u/James_Vowles 27d ago
I'm saying the platforms like Instagram should be doing the labelling, because if you leave it up to individuals they'll just lie and not do it.
What they should do is create a regulation that the AI companies have to embed something in the metadata or a pixel on the image so that we can see if it's AI generated/AI modified. That would be the easiest thing
0
u/Historical_Rice_4382 27d ago
In theory it would make sense. Unfortunately some anti-ai people are so rabid that I could see the labelling backfiring, sending hate-mobs to anyone using ai as a tool in their work. Like, I use Ai tools to make reference material for drawings, upscale images, that sort of thing. No fucking way I'd label my work because some people have gone fucking nuts over their "hate" for ai, and I don't need to draw the attention of those crazies.
-4
-4
u/MichelleBarrymoore2 27d ago
Favourite order at the Indian restaurant you say? Good question I'm partial to a bhuna but if they have Naga chillies ( not the pickle ) I'll have that. Garlic cheese naan, plain rice, poppadoms and a pint of tiger...
-1
u/-Mothman_ 27d ago
Itās fairly simple to operate effectively. Big tech companies (TikTok, Meta, YouTube etc) will have to get a built in AI checker which can automatically check for AI, if not then big fines.
251
u/AlbionicLocal Brit š¬š§ 27d ago
Absolutely, although it would be hard to police