- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Companies must ensure people know when they are interacting with artificially generated images, audio and text designed to look real
Companies must ensure people know when they are interacting with artificially generated images, audio and text designed to look real
I do wonder if they plan to draw a line somewhere in “how AI” the image needs to be. Like, if it’s a raw photo, that’s fine. If it’s enhanced by filters or something, probably not AI fair to say.
But what about the, like, magic eraser and infilling? If I use a tool to erase a bunch of people from a bridge and draw new parts of bridge that weren’t in the original photo… is that AI?
If I use AI to pull a mask and cut someone out from the background, and then put them overtop of a stock background, that uses AI to do work I could have done by hand. Probably fine. But what if I use AI to paint a new background that didn’t exist before this photo. Is that AI?
If I take a picture of me in a real place, doing a real thing, and then use AI infill to paint a different face onto my face so it’s not me anymore, but the rest of the photo including my body is real, is it AI because that person doesn’t exist?
I’d be okay if there were a running list of disclaimer boilerplates:
~ Generated with AI
~ Altered with AI
~ Edited with AI
~ Cleaned with AI
~ Fixed [with non-AI image editing software]
I’d say yes, lol
But the article is about AI-generated images, so I believe anything that gets spat out from the result of a prompt (even a prompt with an image input) should be tagged. Starting with the biggest companies, of course.
Plan? Id be surprisrd if UK lawmakers barely undetstand what a digital image even is
I would say most of those materially alter the content of the picture. Something like filters or ordinary lighting settings alter how the picture appears, but don’t alter its content.