this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
26 points (88.2% liked)

AI

4978 readers
57 users here now

Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence demonstrated by machines, unlike the natural intelligence displayed by humans and animals, which involves consciousness and emotionality. The distinction between the former and the latter categories is often revealed by the acronym chosen.

founded 4 years ago
 

Title, or at least the inverse be encouraged. This has been talked about before, but with how bad things are getting, and how realistic goods ai generated videos are getting, anything feels better than nothing, AI generated watermarks, or metadata can be removed, but thats not the point, the point is deterrence. Immediately all big tech will comply (atleast on the surface for consumer-facing products), and then we will probably see a massive decrease in malicious use of it, people will bypass it, remove watermarks, fix metadata, but the situation should be quite a bit better? I dont see many downsides/

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jjmoldy@lemmy.world 1 points 39 seconds ago

How would such a law be enforced? What agency would enforce it? What penalty would one face for breaking this law?

[–] hexthismess@hexbear.net 1 points 26 minutes ago

Yes. I've seen youtube channels even tag cgi effects, which i appreciate for space content

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 50 minutes ago

I wonder how long people are going to keep perseverating over AI generated content...

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

No, mostly because I'm against laws which are literally impossible to enforce. And it'll become exponentially harder to enforce as the years pass on.

I think a lot of people will get annoyed at this comparison, but I see a lot of similarity between the attitudes of the "AI slop" people and the "We can always tell" anti-trans people, in the sense that I've seen so many people from the first group accuse legitimate human works of being AI-created (and obviously we've all seen how often people from the second group have accused AFAB women of being trans). And just as those anti-trans people actually can't tell for a huge number of well-passing trans people, there's a lot of AI-created works out there that are absolutely passing for human-created works in mass, without giving off any obvious "slop" signs. Real people will get (and are getting) swept-up and hurt in this anti-AI reactionary phase.

I think AI has a lot of legitimately decent uses, and I think it has a lot of stupid-as-shit uses. And the stupid-as-shit uses may be in the lead for the moment. But mandating tagging AI-generated content would just be ineffective and reactionary. I do think it should be regulated in other, more useful ways.

[–] Zarxrax@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not against such a law in theory, but I have many questions about how it would be implemented and enforced. First off, what exactly counts as AI generated? We are seeing more and more that AI features are being added into lots of areas, and I could certainly envision a future in few years time that nearly all photos taken with high end phones would be altered by AI in some way. After that, who exactly is responsible for ensuring that things are tagged properly? The individual who created the image? The software that may have done the AI processing? The social media site that the image was posted on? If the penalties are harsh for not attributing ai to an image, what's to stop sites from just having a blanket disclaimer saying that ALL images on the page were generated by AI?

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 1 points 57 seconds ago

Regarding your last point, you could in theory also penalize for marking non AI generated images as AI generated.

[–] zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

If the penalties are harsh for not attributing ai to an image, what’s to stop sites from just having a blanket disclaimer saying that ALL images on the page were generated by AI?

Just like what happens with companies slapping Prop. 65 warnings on products that don't actually need them, out of caution and/or ignorance

[–] tane6@lemm.ee 4 points 2 hours ago
[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I definitely agree with this. If this does not happen then I can at the very lease see the journalism industry develop its own opt-in standard for image signing.

[–] venusaur@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yup. There should also be a law requiring all photography, specifically of people, that have been altered/photoshopped to be tagged to remind us that the beauty standards that are being shoved down our throats are unrealistic.

[–] Goten@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

Na, we should strive to be perfect.