Comment by SpicyLemonZest
2 years ago
Yes to all of the above, and airbrushed pictures in old magazines should have been labeled too. I'm not saying unauthorized photoediting should be a crime, but I don't see any good reason why news outlets, social media sites, phone manufacturers, etc. need to be secretive about it.
But how on earth is that helpful for consumers?
It's helpful because they know more about what they're looking at, I guess? I'm a bit confused by the question - why wouldn't consumers want to know if a photo they're looking at had a face-slimming filter applied?
You're not thinking like a compliance bureaucrat. If you get in trouble for not labeling something as AI-generated then the simplest implementation is to label everything as AI-generated. And if that isn't allowed then you run every image through an automated process that makes the smallest possible modification in order to formally cause it to be AI-generated so you can get back to the liability-reducing behavior of labeling everything uniformly.
1 reply →
It may not be relevant. What if I want ro pyt up a stock photo with a blog post. What benefit does knowing whether it was generated by multiplying matrices have to my audience? All I see it doing is increasing my costs.
5 replies →