I am curious if there will be a requirement in the future, possibly enforced by the EU or US law, for content such as books, videos, music, PDF files, news articles, or blog posts to be labeled as produced by either a human author or AI. I'm talking about ethical disclosure. While it is uncertain, it is important to be transparent about the content's origins. As we know, AI is here to stay, and it is likely that governments will be the biggest investors (or spenders) in AI technology for military purposes.
Despite Bing having a head start, it's unlikely that Google will lose to AI battle to Bing and others. Google's strong brand image and popular properties, such as Gmail, YouTube, Search, Chrome, and Android, used by billions of users daily, give them a significant advantage. It's doubtful that Bing will take over the search market anytime soon. But, who knows? Ha!
IMO this sounds infeasible, since AI human generated content exists on continuum. At one end is content 100% written by a human, at the other end is 100% AI written content. How do we label everything in between? For example, AI written content that was tweaked by a human? Or human written content with some sentences written by AI?
Furthermore, it seems unenforceable. As AI becomes more sophisticated (if this isn't the case already), it will be virtually impossible to prove mislabelling.
I have written a number of documents recently that are AI assisted but definitely my own work. I use the LLM to help me cross reference topics, clean up some of the language, improve the flow and prepare for the potential follow-up discussions but the arguments and recommendations are still mine. Is this AI or not?
Side note: I just prepared a recommendation for an org change and had the AI argue against it, as well as provide responses. Some were good and some were weak but it was extremely useful and quite fun.
Yesterday I sent out an invite for a family event we're organizing.
This time, I figured I'll use GPT-4 to help me write the perfect text. I described the details of the event, my relationship to the invitee (inb4: without any kind of PII, of course), the style, tone and context of the desired text, and asked GPT-4 to generate suggestions. I went back and forth with it, asking it to generate more variants of a specific suggestions, then taught it a simple markup for editing and asked to iterate on specific words and sentences, until I was somewhat satisfied with the result.
Then I asked my wife for her idea, and she quickly wrote a little text of her own. Only afterwards, I showed her the best (to me) of GPT-4 texts. We then mixed the sentences from both together, creating a final work that's 50% OG, perfectly clean text written by my wife, and 50% the output of GPT-4 (with me guiding it).
Is that text a work of AI? Or of a human? Or both? Is it even 50% AI and 50% human, given that the AI part were created from my input, and then edited by my telling GPT-4 what to change, and then finally approved by me using my own judgement?
Does a random website sharing invitation templates on-line have a copyright case, if a couple sentences from our text matched something of theirs? What if it wasn't the AI part that matched?
For reference, Gmail and docs 100% use generative ai[0]: "As language understanding models use billions of common phrases and sentences to automatically learn about the world, they can also reflect human cognitive biases"
It's not clear where to draw the line on what is AI or not, and I suspect most content will be at least partially generated by AI. Is spell-checking AI? grammar-checking? Rewriting sentences for clarity? Summarization?
Or, following editing suggestions your text editor/word processor gives you? Or, on the artistic side, automatic cutout/background removal? Content-aware fill?
Just as with labelling for Vegan and Vegitarian food, "Fair Trade" or Organic, there is going to be similar movements in the creative arts for "AI Free" content.
So no, I don't believe there will be regulation on labelling "AI" derived content, but there will be a drive to label and certify "organic content".
It could backfire like the Made in China labels and all that did is advertise China as a manufacturing hub and leader and project it’s totality and power
I believe that would just be fighting losing battles on a front that doesn't matter.
Content mills existed long before AI. Clickbait existed long before AI. Fake news and misinformation existed long before AI.
AI will empower things like that, but it isn't at the core of the problem.
As a user, I care that content is truthful, useful, and/or entertaining. I care that it isn't presented in a misleading way, and I care that it doesn't cause harm (hate, misinformation, etc.) - What I don't care about is who or what created it.
I think a bigger step in the right direction for society would be to empower certain groups like journalists in ways that they don't have to compete with all the crap out there.
I think clear visions, good taste, thorough fact-checking, clever prompt engineering and proper AI-result curation will all become more important in the years ahead.
Despite Bing having a head start, it's unlikely that Google will lose to AI battle to Bing and others. Google's strong brand image and popular properties, such as Gmail, YouTube, Search, Chrome, and Android, used by billions of users daily, give them a significant advantage. It's doubtful that Bing will take over the search market anytime soon. But, who knows? Ha!