[wickedsight]

My biggest problem with this is that this regulation is only aimed at AI. It should be much broader and include any technology that can be used to make 'authentic-looking' content. Why should someone who's good at Photoshop or VFX be allowed to share fake stuff as real, but not someone who's good with AI?

For many years we've been aware that edited models on magazine covers, Instagram and in ads are negatively impacting the well-being of (young) people, but we've never done anything about that. I consider this regulation incredibly hypocritical and full on populist because 'AI BAD!' and nothing else.

[matsemann]

In Norway ads already must specify if a person in it has been digitally altered (changed shape, smoothed skin etc). Quite funny with international ads getting these banners plastered over their face. Random example: https://imgur.com/a/t8zT37o (rules for size and contrast)

Here are the rules: https://www.forbrukertilsynet.no/vi-jobber-med/merking-av-re... Quite level headed and easy to follow. So no, editing contrast or whatever people think they're clever to point out doesn't count.

[Hnrobert42]

Where does it stop? Should it include edits with a digital camera? What about black and white?

I'm not trolling. I'm thinking about how you practically define what you are proposing to regulate.

[tgv]

> incredibly hypocritical

If that's all... If anything, it's lenient for AI. You can still spread all the mind poison you want, you just need to label it.

> full on populist

It's not populist. That's just a cheap frame.

[xgbi]

AI is capable of generating things that are nearly indiscernible from reality, with almost any input, be it adversarial or other. Photoshop at least involved some manual trimming and lengthy process that couldn't be applied to "literally anything you can thing of".

See these:

- https://www.instagram.com/p/DTDKbhflVRO/ - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg8wvz427vo#:~:text=Accor...

And many, many examples in day to day reporting.

I'd rather have the laywork already there to punish sensationalist publishers that abuse AI to forge alternate realities than nothing.

Manipulating information is going to be the plague of the post-GPT/post-Midjourney era. We are entering an era where trust if going to be hard earned, and I don't know how you can trust for-profit or politician/billionaire owned companies anymore. What prevents WaPo from manufacturing information?

[DarkNova6]

You completely disregard practical implications.

Can you manually create images that were done via AI? Of course you can.

Can you create AI fake content and misinformation as easily with human labor as you can with AI? No.

Understanding this distinction answers whether you see the implications AI has on the future of democracies or not.

[didntcheck]

What about the practical difficulty of defining "AI"? You could explicitly call out, say, diffusion models, but that would leave future holes for new AI technologies

What about Photoshop being driven by Claude Cowork? That my seem asinine, but it is a serious consideration

I found this definition here [1]

> ‘AI system’ means a machine-based system that is designed to operate with varying levels of autonomy and that may exhibit adaptiveness after deployment, and that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual environments;

But that barely clears anything up. Even worse, I would not include a simple user-prompted image generator under this definition, as it is not operating with any autonomy. Or, you interpret it so broadly that seam carving [2] is considered AI, let alone content-aware fill

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seam_carving