Companies must ensure people know when they are interacting with artificially generated images, audio and text designed to look real

  • psycotica0@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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?

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Plan? Id be surprisrd if UK lawmakers barely undetstand what a digital image even is

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.