Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> they just ban you if they don't like you, or at random for no apparent reason, and you have no recourse.

The ban recourse problem is the opposite.

This is the "keep recourse": "this video is obviously bad, but google doesn't feel like taking it down, and there is nothing I can do about it". Now there is, and it can actually go to a court with a judge in the end, if Google is obstinate.

You didn't have a right to be hosted on Google before, and you don't have now. Of course they can ban you as they like. The thing is, they can't host you as they like, if you're breaking this rule.



> The thing is, they can't host you as they like, if you're breaking this rule.

Except that the rule can be satisfied just by labeling it, and if there are penalties for not labeling but no penalties for labeling then the obvious incentive is to stick the label on everything just in case, causing it to become meaningless.

To prevent that would require prohibiting the label from being applied to things that aren't AI-generated, which is impracticable because now you need 100% accuracy and there is no way to err on the side of caution, but nobody has 100% accuracy. So then the solution would be to actually make everything AI-generated, e.g. by systematically running it through some subtle AI filter, and then you can get back to labeling everything to avoid liability.


You could be right. But I wonder if truly nobody will want to claim their video is not AI-generated. Seems like some people will, and they would get an advantage out of it. Yes, Fox News claims they're entertainment and nobody reasonable would believe them. But not all news channels do this.

Did the California proposition 65 really result in cancer labels on everything? Or is it just hyperbole? I suppose having a lot of labels is still bad, even if they're not technically on everything.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: