Comment by SpicyLemonZest
2 years ago
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.
In fact this is exactly what happened recently with sesame labeling requirements: https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies-label-b28f8eb3dc...
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.
The benefit is that your audience knows whether it's a real picture of a thing that exists in the world. I wouldn't argue that's a particularly large benefit - but I don't see why labeling generated images would be a particularly large cost either.
The map is not the territory. No photo represents a real thing that exists in the world. Photos just record some photons that arrived. Should publishers be required to disclose the frequency response curve of the CMOS sensor in the camera and the chromatic distortion specifications for the lens?
I'm approximately a free market person. I hate regulation and believe it should only exist when there is a involuntary third party externality.
My position is that there in an unspecified benefit, the only cases specified here already are covered by other laws. All such generative labeling would do is increase costs (marginal or not, they make businesses less competitive) and open the door for further regulatory capture. Furthermore, refardless of commerciality, this is likely a 1A violation.
2 replies →