[ArcaneMoose]

More scenarios:

- AI generated VFX on top of non-AI video

- AI upscaling of low res footage

- AI frame interpolation for synthetic slow-mo

- Modified / composited AI video

- Footage created by "Extend Scene" features in Premiere Pro and others

- Word correction from tools like Descript

- AI relighting or colorization

- Reaction video to a video containing AI-generated content

And in general, what amount of combination of any of these applications constitutes as "AI generated"? If I have a 30 minute video with a 3 second AI generated clip, do I get the same label as full-blown AI slop video?

[autoexec]

All of them in any amount and yes, your specific 3 seconds should be labeled as being AI generated in your video (or description) and your entire video should be labeled as made using AI by youtube.

A 30 minute speech by a president where I use AI to change 3 seconds in order to make that person say something they never did should also get the label. The label shouldn't be about how much AI was used, but that it was used at all.

[anshorei]

Why does this mean AI-aided color correction, 25fps to 30fps, or upscaling 480p to 1080p should be treated the same? Using AI to make someone say something different (even if only for a small part of the video) is very clearly different, that's deception. Why does AI editing 3 seconds of audio from a president's speech be treated different from when a human does it without AI?

It sounds like your argument is about deceptive editing. Why not just require labelling deceptive editing? That way there can be place for comedy channels to do so for comedic purpose (rather than blanket ban on deceptive edits).

Almost any photograph taken with a mobile phone is AI edited because phones come with AI to enhance photo quality (e.g. Deep Fusion, Smart HDR), should any photo taken with a mobile camera be labelled AI now?

[autoexec]

> Why does this mean AI-aided color correction, 25fps to 30fps, or upscaling 480p to 1080p should be treated the same?

You may not be old enough to remember seeing it, but notices like "This film has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit this screen" were put there for a reason. It was to avoid legislation which would have forced distributors to disclose that the product they were delivering was not the same as what people saw in theaters because it was considered deceptive to hide that fact. Altering of someone else's video should always be disclosed. That includes upscaling and color alterations even when they aren't done using AI and should absolutely be done when AI is inserting a bunch of fake frames.

When using AI to edit your own content deception is much less of a concern, but yes the use of AI should still be disclosed. There are clearly people who want to know when AI is being used to create something. There's no harm in having the label there, it just makes it easier for people to decide if and how to view your work. What value is there in hiding your use of AI from others in cases where you aren't trying to trick them?

Also yes, cell phone cameras should be required to clearly disclose that the photos they take to not reflect reality, and include the fact that they are edited with AI in meta-data. I've had friends complain that the photos their phones were taking were automatically edited and there was no option to disable those edits. They were upset because they intentionally wanted photos that reflected the real world and ultimately were forced to switch to using other cameras to get the accuracy they needed. As far as I'm concerned cell phone cameras doing that are simply defective. People should be aware of that fact before they use cell phone cameras for things like evidence collection, pictures of medial concerns, and for anything where accuracy matters more than what some algorithm thinks you'd rather see than the truth.

[tliltocatl]

> - AI upscaling of low res footage

I'd say this is far more problematic than plain slop.