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.
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"
I wonder if this will just end with "may contain AI content" labels on everything instead of achieving something useful.
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.
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"
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.
What for?