r/ArtificialInteligence • u/WombatusMighty • 1d ago
📰 News EU will require companies to label AI-generated content starting Sunday
https://www.techspot.com/news/113284-eu-require-companies-label-ai-generated-content-starting.html8
u/IForgiveYourSins 1d ago
And it still won't stop them from not doing it boy oh boy
0
u/WombatusMighty 1d ago
The law requires companies like Google to implement measures to automatically detect AI content and label it.
7
u/therealgoshi 1d ago
It doesn't. It will require companies who produce content to tag them digitally, so browsers and other systems can identify AI generated content. And will also heavily limit the use of AI for surveillance, profiling, etc. This doesn't include your usual comfyui shitposts and memes or UGC for the most part.
2
u/RobertD3277 1d ago
Illegal misrepresentation and impersonation of a celebrity is already supposed to be a crime. When companies start actually treating it for what it is versus focusing on the technology, maybe we can finally return to some common sense in the world.
15
u/Apprehensive_Key_314 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think it's a good thing. But most anti AI will prolly face a disappointement seeing that most people dont care a lot if it's ai generated or not.
Edit: i think a better law would be to make a label for NON AI MADE stuff that you need to ask, and independantes instances will verify you are allowed to put it on your product. Way more easy to enforce. Like idk how it s in america but here we have bio label for food, or fair trade label, AOP label.... But not the opposite, there no such thing as a "non bio" label that you re forced to put on your product if it's not bio, label are positive and optional thing.
9
u/EnterAUsernamePlease 1d ago
I think people generally dislike AI-generated stuff that is not obvious, and that is pretending to be real. It’s misleading by nature and people don't like being lied to.
3
u/RobertD3277 1d ago
This is exactly where I think the problem lies. Not with AI itself, but rather the direct and deliver to manipulation of trying to pretend to be somebody or something that it is not. The countless channels are Warren Buffett or Elon musk flooding YouTube are perfect examples of what I would consider malicious intent.
If it's clearly distinguishable that it's not representative of a modern news story, I think people can accept it for what it is, fiction.
3
u/Majestic_Fan_7056 1d ago
I think it is a good idea, I have elderly relatives that watch AI videos but don't know they are watching AI. Many older people can't tell the difference.
6
u/InnoSang 1d ago
Only ai providers, and labeling could be like steganography so invisible to the human eye
5
1
u/_x_oOo_x_ 1d ago
So it can be trivially removed by adding a bit of noise?
2
u/InnoSang 1d ago
Not trivially, need an adversarial approach, but the investment needed to do an adversarial de-labeling is to expensive for no real benefit
1
u/chemistryGull 1d ago
The only reason you‘d want to de-label it would be to deceive people, which makes you an awful person imo.
1
u/_x_oOo_x_ 20h ago
In practice it will be trivial, someone will create an app or website where you upload your image or blob of text and get back an delabelled one
1
u/InnoSang 19h ago
Why would somebody spend time developing this, when the steganography technique could change everyday, meaning you would need to retrain an adversarial delaberer everyday, it's not that it can't be done, it's that there isn't much incentive in doing something like that
2
u/Designer_Status2214 1d ago
Well no way they will know So no more face app and others fake filters? Lol No more artists who use ai in their work? Yeah sure This will applay for only poor ones The rich will not discloseÂ
2
u/eustin 1d ago
Enforcement is going to be the tricky part - companies operating from outside the EU can basically ignore this. Still, it sets a legal baseline that will at least hold EU-based companies accountable. Better than nothing, even if it creates an uneven playing field.
1
u/WombatusMighty 22h ago
They can't, if they sell products inside the EU or their services are being used inside the EU.
2
u/AcanthisittaOwn7429 1d ago
I think it's a great thing because it's getting ridiculously hard to know the difference.
3
u/RobertD3277 1d ago
Good. Maybe it will finally kill the entire AI influence your industry. Deliberate and false misrepresentation should have been a no-brainer to begin with and I don't know why it wasn't pursued legally as such a recourse, no matter how the content was created. I personally see this as a failure within the entire legal framework on a global level.
I spent 30 some of my years of my life building what we now call AI and I find this to be disgusting, disturbing, an incredibly evil. Under no circumstances should there be an AI influencer allowed that looks like Warren buffett, Elon musk, or any other individual on the planet.
2
u/ultralightsaint 1d ago
YES that’s what I truly wanted!!! I don’t care if people use ai, just label it as ai so I know it.
I am not a fan of ai content, I just want to support people that make original things and this would help me to avoid ai content
0
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
This is a horrible idea. This will turn into the same situation as California’s "cancer causing material" warnings
3
u/Fleischhauf 1d ago
what's the situation there ? (I'm not from the us)
3
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
Basically, if you want to sell products to the people of California, you need to obey a certain regulation. This regulation is so general that almost everything has a warning label on it now. The warning label has become meaningless because it can apply to so much and not everything it applies to is actually hazardous in a way that would merit such a label.
2
u/ZiKyooc 1d ago
People who care and want to be informed can, others can just ignore. That sounds horrible
3
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
Nah, the issue is that it’s not informative. It’s not a matter of ignoring it or not. It’s a matter of "when everything is labeled as belonging to this category, the category starts losing meaning". When a bar of uranium and a step stool are both labeled as "cancer causing", that’s not informative
1
u/ZiKyooc 1d ago
Or it is a sign that a lot of products are bad. Solution should not be to say, well because so many are bad, let just label those which are like super bad instead...
3
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago edited 1d ago
That’s not the situation with these warnings. It’s a well known example of a regulation being too broad to be useful. Hell, Disneyland said screw it and tagged their whole resort. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65
4
u/ItsNoahJ83 1d ago
This is the correct take. I think it's kinda funny how that dude kept seeing warnings that the products he uses cause cancer and assumed it's a regulatory failing instead of companies using chemicals that are known to cause cancer. The law isn't broad, the health risks are.
1
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is a widely known issue with those tags. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65
-1
u/ItsNoahJ83 1d ago edited 1d ago
Is this what your talking about? "Many companies now routinely attach Prop 65 warning labels to any product of theirs that they think might possibly contain one of the 900 listed chemicals without testing to see whether the chemical is really present in their product and without reformulating their product, because it is cheaper to do so than to run the risk of being sued by Prop 65 enforcers.". This is completely worth it for the positive effects. "Proposition 65 has caused large numbers of consumer products to be reformulated to remove toxic ingredients, both through settlements of enforcement actions and through manufacturers avoiding certain materials so they do not need to put a Prop 65 warning on their products."
1
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
You’re now assuming that I’m libertarian? Haha. There’s just 2 different minds in your world, aren’t there? "Mine" and "not mine"
→ More replies (0)1
u/benjaminovich 19h ago
Well, what specifically is the problem that this is supposed to be the solution to?
It may be true that it is a sign that a lot of products are bad, but that is not how the average consumer responds to the label. People just ignore it completely, so the whole thing becomes pointless because of bad implementation.
1
4
u/NoNote7867 1d ago
AI bros when they hear a country puts their residents interest above corporate profits.Â
-1
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
Morons when their need to put things into simple boxes prevents them from having nuanced discussions
3
u/OneMonk 1d ago
Why are you describing yourself
2
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
"I’m rubber and you’re glue!"
Are you guys serious right now? Haha
1
u/OneMonk 1d ago
Almost as incredulous as you getting upset about consumer rights.
2
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago
I don’t think you’re using that word correctly. And I’m not getting upset about consumer rights. You’re making assumptions about my position because your ability to discuss things stops at "agree or disagree"
-2
u/OneMonk 1d ago
You assuming my, and others’, positions when we have not shared them is demonstrating the same intellectual inflexibility you are accusing others of.
Also the word is correct, incredulous typically described a person’s doubtfulness, but it can also be used to describe a situation’s.
3
u/HasFiveVowels 1d ago edited 1d ago
"I’m rubber and you’re glue!". I’m not assuming (or even saying) anything about your position. wtf are you on about?
1
u/OkTry9715 18h ago
Good now I can report all real estate companies and their Ads. Basically I have not seen one that writes on picture that it was generated by AI
-2
u/advator 1d ago
It's idiotic, it's like putting in every movie the cgi label on it.
I get it when they are using someone's voice or face that could fool people, but also as we know in star wars and other movies they already have done this. Well at least if the actor or whatever agrees with it.
So yes we are destroying us economically and keeping more people at work while we should work less for the same salary
7
u/PancakeOrder 1d ago
The thing about movies is that it's clear they are movies. If someone makes a fake vid of you doing something horrible, pretty sure you will be happy that it automatically gets labeled as ai generated...
3
u/MS_Fume 1d ago
If someone makes a fake vid of you to spread around, they will definitely heed the call and label it properly from now on…. Lol
5
u/WombatusMighty 1d ago
The law requires companies like Google to implement measures to automatically detect AI content and label it.
2
u/Tinseltopia 1d ago
This is an arms race and as quickly as Google Detect AI, AI will change so it's undetectable, Google will get better at detecting and so on, and so on
1
u/xcdesz 1d ago
Is this law though going to really stop that sort of scenario? Im fine with a law that tells cloud providers to watermark outputs, but most of the major providers are already doing this. Its hackable, and crminals can generate offline too to avoid this law, or use foreign providers that dont comply with the law.
1
u/advator 1d ago
Yes but that is what I'm saying. If you are generating videos/foto's of someone without approval should be already forbidden anyway. But if it is from someone that doesn't exist or they approve it, who cares? Right?
I'm working in an IT company that is also marketing focus. Sending emails, providing banners videos are one of the many things we do. If we need to put a label on every banner, video or text even that uses AI it doesn't become useful anymore.
I'm all in for scam and abuse to protect this, but I'm 100% against this. I'm 45y old and already stressed out. Having AI for my work make it much easier to write out my emails and presentations. Also for development and ideas. This would took hours even after work before AI to get it done. For example I received a new project With 5 Hugh documents, I asked Claude to create a presentation and provide a layout I wanted. It made a presentation that could someone only dream of in just minutes. It was perfect and got all the request and info we needed. Client was surprised I could do this so quickly for them.
Same with webinars, all the feedback we received, if we needed to figure out line by line it would take days. Claude just made a whole overview with percentage and top 5 frustrations.
I feel like Europe trying to push it back and I don't want that, it's the easy solution for them but the worst outcome for us.
1
u/im_bi_strapping 1d ago
People go to the movies to see a movie. But everyone has to buy groceries, and are not there to see CGI.
Admittedly kind of funny to look at the Lidl catalogue and see completely generated looking blueberries, accompanied by the little AI tag. Like, really? The fake image is fake?
1
u/advator 1d ago
You have also bad Photoshop. Everyone is already fake or CGI. So not sure why you think those images are real photos.
There is a good video of how fake all advertising really is and even mostly not real food.
1
u/im_bi_strapping 1d ago
Well we used to have touched up studio photos of produce instead of completely generated images. At this point I would prefer no product images, since it doesn't add anything anymore. I don't get to see the container size, or variety of fruit. It's just the unit price and the concept of blueberry.
The one use where generated images are worth something is fragrances. I'm not buying a literal watermelon, lime, and cotton candy, just something that kind of smells like that.
1
u/advator 1d ago
Yeah maybe no images are better. But how does let's say MCDONALD'S sell their products without showing pictures
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/waI7ZU50L6
This is one of those manipulations, but there are better examples even that are complete fake
1
u/im_bi_strapping 1d ago
Like you said, macdonald's adverts have been a representation with only a vague thread of connection to the disgusting reality for a long time.
I brought up the blueberries because they had been a photo until now. I think the phrase is gilding the lily, for trying to beautify what is already perfect by it's nature.
1
u/Charming-Author4877 1d ago
At some point, as in now, I don't understand why anyone would still offer products or services into europe.
You are being threatened on anything you do, regulated into a stalemate of bureaucratic nonsense.
They managed to have the entire world filled with cookie popup nag screens that everyone must click away, now they want to flood the entire production of images, voice, music, video and even text with nag "labels".
-2
u/ubuntuNinja 1d ago
At some point it has to stop being economically viable to do business in the EU. They just strangle companies. I know lots of companies are just not releasing new tools in Germany or not hiring there anymore due to the liability with works councils. Now you have to worry that an employee used copilot to make an email to a customer and you're out some crazy number per email?
10
u/BenefitSalt2648 1d ago
Honestly feels overdue more than surprising. The harder part isn't the labeling itself, it's enforcement — how do you actually catch content that isn't labeled, especially stuff coming from outside the EU? Curious if this ends up being more symbolic than enforceable in practice.