[figassis]

How do you define "trying to make it look authentic"? You make a deepfake of a politician saying a discriminatory joke, and the author will just say "It was obvious this was not intended to be authentic. Anyone could see it's out of character". But the message already influenced millions.

[LelouBil]

Look at the written law.

I found this definition here :

> ... who use an AI system to generate or manipulate image, audio or video content that appreciably resembles existing persons, objects, places, entities or events and would falsely appear to a person to be authentic or truthful (deep fakes)

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

[didntcheck]

That text defines AI as such

> ‘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

To me, this definition reads as only including "agentic" uses, or automated decision engines. An image generator does not operate with any autonomy. If you interpret the "input" part loosely enough to include it, then you'd likely include old and simple techniques like seam carving [1], which very few would consider "AI" in the contemporary sense

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

[LelouBil]

"Varying levels of autonomy"

So from image generators up to agents.

[InsideOutSanta]

I often see this kind of comment on hn. I'm not sure if I'm suffering from confirmation bias, but I do think it's possible that a large proportion of people here think that laws should work like code. What happened is the input, some calculation happens, and the judgment is the output.

But that's not how laws work. In this case, a judge would set some standards, like "would a reasonable person be confused by this", and would rule based on that. It won't matter overly much what the author thinks "anyone could see," but it's also not an entirely objective process with code-like rules. That's just not how most laws work.

[sjs382]

"The law is not autistic"

[zeusly]

The law is phrased “real people” which doesnt mean people that exist or are famous but rather people in general. So ai images of people using your product or whatever are real people which have to be labeled.

[DarkNova6]

If anything this an argument _for_ clearly labelling manipulated photos and AI generated depiction of supposedly real life events.

[mcv]

Yes, but without exceptions for satire and parody etc.

[DarkNova6]

I'd argue that if a satire or parody is strong enough having a small watermark will not detract from its statement.

[Tade0]

By the effect it has, among other things. Courts take into account whether the stated motive is believable.

[seanmcdirmid]

If it looks like slop, it’s obviously AI. If it looks like someone actually put some effort into it, or if it looks like “real”, then it needs to be labeled because you wouldn’t know it was AI otherwise?

[cyanydeez]

the law will allow normal broadcast outlets to filter; so some of that will just be the pipeline.

If you're talking about twitter, then yeah, that's a firehose of crap and there's no laws that'll stop the "owww, it was just a joke!"