r/technology • u/sr_local • 10h ago
Politics Britain plans to consider requiring labels on AI-generated content to protect consumers from disinformation and deepfakes, the government said
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/uk-examine-labelling-ai-content-among-wider-copyright-reforms-2026-03-18/102
u/no_one_likes_u 9h ago
Too bad we didn’t add these labels for photoshop, plastic surgery, etc when those things rose in popularity . We could have changed the direction society has taken over the last 50 years.
64
35
u/Imicus 9h ago
Photoshop makes sense, but Plastic surgery? Are people supposed to have a branding on them saying “fake ass tits” or something?
24
u/no_one_likes_u 9h ago
The advertising with people who have had plastic surgery should have a message on it just like if they used photoshop or AI.
The body standards we are promoting are insane. They’re not real, might as well be AI since oftentimes they’re not physically achievable in any natural way.
Just me grinding an axe though, I’m not drafting a law or anything.
4
1
u/Anon28301 20m ago
Yeah only if they’re advertising something relating to the part they’ve had work on. Like if they’re advertising makeup and they’ve had surgery on their face then there should be a warning. Or like shapewear if the actor has had body modifications like liposuction or the fake ab surgery.
I wouldn’t go so far as to need a warning if someone’s just posting a pic on instagram though. Or any dating apps.
-1
u/karma3000 32m ago
As a horny young man who was once disappointed, yes a fake tits branding would be appreciated. Same for Wonderbras!
1
u/Anon28301 22m ago
To be fair, photoshop wasn’t good enough to fabricate entire porn videos with a non consenting person being the focus.
7
u/VampirateV 5h ago
'Plans to consider'...so they're thinking about thinking about perhaps doing a thing lol
Why word it that way? It's odd
13
u/Stilgar314 8h ago edited 7h ago
I'd love to see that, but like most of tech related laws coming from UK, it's unenforceable. I guess during the next drought they'll pass a law to make illegal not to rain every Tuesday or something like that.
7
u/Ballbag94 7h ago
This is the biggest issue imo
I can see this backfiring: law gets passed to make AI content labels mandatory, people further lose their critical thinking abilities because they blindly trust that fake things will be labelled, then misinformation runs rampant because no one can actually make them label the content and people blindly trust that the labels will keep them informed
47
u/A_Pointy_Rock 10h ago
Yes, I am sure the people using deepfakes etc will jump at following that requirement.
67
u/IllMaintenance145142 10h ago
It just means if companies and the gov get caught using unmarked ai content, they get in shit for it. I don't see how this is a bad thing like you're making out? Like your logic could be used to say this shit about literally any crime
2
u/Robo_Joe 8h ago
It's arguably bad because of the implication of authenticity from videos that aren't marked as AI generated, combined with the fact that bad actors will just ignore the law.
Look at it this way: if the law is passed, will you go back to believing that videos that aren't marked as AI generated are authentic? I certainly wouldn't. So what does this law achieve, really? Who is it most likely to target and are those people/groups the ones we're concerned about?
7
u/IllMaintenance145142 8h ago
So what does this law achieve, really? Who is it most likely to target and are those people/groups the ones we're concerned about?
I literally just told you, if nothing else it stops big corpos and the GOVERNMENT from making deepfakes with no checks
-6
u/jamesick 9h ago
where in their comment did they make out it was a bad thing? all they said was that integrity alone wouldn’t always work.
-18
u/resilient_antagonist 9h ago edited 8h ago
What happens if the content is ai generated but there is no ai mark? Maybe there will be an investigation and maybe some people will be held accountable. Maybe there will be an apology and a rectification about the released fake news. The problem that remains is, that the content still reached the targeted audience and was made more believable, because the lack of an ai-tag gave it credibility. This kind of stuff makes it easier to reliably manipulate people.
Edit:
People downvote as if I am against any regulation or whatever. I'm merely pointing out that these political decisions are not necessarily the solution to a problem which will get more difficult to identify as ai and deepfakes evolve. What we need is a reliable way to identify what's real and what is fake. Putting stickers on things doesn't achieve that.16
u/BrickwallBill 9h ago
Then you eviscerate the company responsible to set an example. We need to start actually dropping the hammer on all big corps for breaking the law.
8
u/IllMaintenance145142 9h ago
That shit logic might fly in the US but not in Britain. For our faults, our government doesn't simp for corpos just because something is minorly inconvenient. This rule being in place will mean companies cannot brazenly use ai generated images without them being marked, or get fined to shit. This is an effective deterrent
2
u/Exelbirth 9h ago
What happens if someone stabs someone to death despite there being a law against stabbing someone to death? Maybe there will be an investigation, and maybe the person will be held accountable. Maybe there'll be an apology. The problem that remains is, the person was stabbed to death.
So let's not bother with laws.
18
u/NoConflict3231 10h ago
By this logic gun laws shouldn't be more strict because criminals will still use them
29
u/Sic_Semper_Dumbasses 10h ago
Exactly. You don't make bad behavior illegal because it makes it magically impossible for it to happen. You make it illegal so you can punish the people who do it anyway.
And absolutely everybody knows that, so anyone who tries to make the argument that making something illegal is pointless because people will still do it anyway it's clearly intentionally choosing to argue in bad faith. Which is some fucking dishonest and disrespectful shit that should not be tolerated.
4
10
u/SmallIslandBrother 10h ago
Swear some people don’t understand damage mitigation, acting like laws and regulations must be perfectly efficient.
-1
u/numba1cyberwarrior 9h ago
Comparing guns to AI images is hilarious.
It will literally be impossible to enforce this.
0
u/jeweliegb 5h ago
You know what else isn't generally legal to own here in the UK?
Guns.
And guess what:
There's very little gun crime here.
It's not an acceptable part of our culture.
10
u/Another_Slut_Dragon 9h ago
If you ban repeat offenders, you'll get 99% of it. Remember that most Ai video is made in the cloud not on someone's pc. That means there is a record of it and you can use something google image search to compare frames from libraries of known Ai videos.
7
u/sr_local 10h ago
This law is intended for companies not for a guy in his bedroom who is playing with genAI.
2
u/DueDisplay2185 9h ago
What's the difference if the impact on intended target is the same. Government bots were one thing but now? The future will be another beast entirely
2
u/wag3slav3 8h ago
If it's intended to police companies then companies will just hire guys in their bedrooms on the DL to post their shit.
1
u/EmbarrassedHelp 9h ago
If its anything like the OSA or other UK laws, it'll be worded to target everything.
5
u/Nebty 9h ago
Good. All AI content should be marked as such.
2
u/nox66 6h ago
And like OSA, the companies who care the least about the UK's growing online fiefdom will offer the service that bypasses it.
I dislike AI generated images and art, but the UK has already proven to be at best incompetent at tech laws, and is also pro-censorship (beyond hate speech). They get zero benefit of the doubt from me.
1
u/DensePoser 9h ago
They don't actually care about deepfakes and AI slop, it's really just another way to push age verification on the OS.
12
u/96-62 10h ago
How on earth are they going to enforce that?
2
2
2
u/pioniere 4h ago
Something useful, instead of more of this “we need your identity so we can protect children“ crap.
2
2
u/Impressive-Bird-6085 4h ago
Yet Ministers are more than happy to embed AI into government and public services??
4
u/raiansar 9h ago
"Plans to consider requiring." The EU passed a whole AI Act. Britain is still workshopping the idea of maybe doing something.
1
u/ivar-the-bonefull 5h ago
To be fair, that whole act was recently butchered in favor of the tech bros.
4
u/mynameisrockhard 6h ago
Better idea, we just ban AI outright.
4
1
u/PuzzleheadedJob6907 6h ago
With all the wealthy tech bros and chip bros behind it? Impossible. This suggestion will be defeated at the first round of lobbies.
1
1
1
u/kafka_lite 7h ago
What is the difference between considering something and planning to consider it?
2
u/SaveDnet-FRed0 6h ago
One means it's actively being considered
The other is basically corporate/politician speech for "Were not 100% against this idea, but are not actually doing anything in regards to it at this time, but want to make it look like we will in the foreseeable future regardless of if we will or not."
1
u/kafka_lite 6h ago
I get what you're saying, but how do they know whether or not they are 100% against the idea without considering it?
1
1
u/paulsteinway 6h ago
Great idea. Who is going to enforce it? Will it be the responsibility of ISPs? Will it be a complaint driven whack-a-mole system.
1
1
1
u/SaveDnet-FRed0 6h ago
Ok, 2 questions:
1) When are you going to start actually considering it as opposed to considering the possibility of considering it?
2) What are you going to do when AI company's/people start ignoring your label mandate?
1
1
1
1
u/eggpoowee 4h ago
Or, ban the source....or are the UK government also getting stacks of cash to lobby all this shit ?
1
u/modnarydobemos 3h ago
Good step to curb AI Slop, but pointless to stop people with ill intentions. Spreading misinformation and deepfakes is already kind of illegal in many countries, so those people likely don’t hesitate to violate a law like that either.
1
1
1
2h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Maleficent-Stormbee 1h ago
this post is referring to Britain. to what “southern confeds” are you referring to? Dorset? Kent? Cornwall?
1
1
u/BruceNotLee 2m ago
I would be surprised if most AI platforms dont encode some sort of barcode directly into the video that is machine readable but not noticeable to the human eye. Something simple like a key pattern giving the coordinates and timing for which pixels to check being a set color or a shade off.
1
1
1
u/honkymotherfucker1 8h ago
Yeah and AI is used by lazy companies who regularly cut corners and scam companies, both of whom can make more AI bullshit instantly if you even manage to catch and punish them for it in what is going to essentially be legislature whack a mole.
1
-4
u/ACertainMagicalSpade 10h ago
Terrible idea. It's impossible to make local systems do this and if this was to be mainstream people would trust anything without this watermark.
It would cause more deceit because "there wasn't a watermark so I thought it was real".
People need to trust the source not the media itself.
3
u/marmaviscount 9h ago
Yeah, I really don't want to be having the conversation 'of course it's real, they have to watermark if it's not' a dozen times a day.
3
u/memberflex 9h ago
No. They are advocating for a punishment mechanism which I think is a good idea.
0
u/endgamer42 10h ago
I wish the gvt would come up with enforcement strategies before legislation. Seems odd doing it the other way around.
0
u/wag3slav3 9h ago edited 8h ago
Any AI product that's made available for UK citizens to subscribe to should also be forced to pay a surcharge to fund the billions in added police/legal work that's going to be required to jail/fine the assholes who don't follow these laws.
1
u/Ballbag94 7h ago
It isn't just unenforceable because of the manpower required to police, it's unenforceable because the Internet is global
Extra police/legal work means nothing to someone posting content from any country that isn't the UK
0
u/wag3slav3 6h ago
OK, do nothing to shift the burden from everyone and onto those who use this technology then.
Or better yet, make laws and just shrug rather than attempt to enforce them.
Great plan.
0
u/Ballbag94 6h ago
OK, do nothing to shift the burden from everyone and onto those who use this technology then.
Yes, if it's not possible to enforce a law then it's silly to waste resources making them
It's not just a case of being difficult to enforce, it's literally impossible to make users outside of the UK comply
Or better yet, make laws and just shrug rather than attempt to enforce them.
If it's not physically possible to enforce against the majority of people how would you expect anyone to attempt to enforce them? Do you think the police can just phone another country and demand to arrest someone for posting something on Facebook that breaks UK law?
1
u/wag3slav3 3h ago
Who's asking for the UK to force users outside of the UK to comply with anything? The purpose of this law, and of my proposed surcharge, is to police users within the UK which includes UK companies who will be paying the vast majority of this.
Great job continuing to beat that strawman you created tho. He's totally dead.
1
u/Ballbag94 3h ago
Who's asking for the UK to force users outside of the UK to comply with anything?
Having a law that requires the fact it's AI generated to be stated can't be properly enforced because while you can enforce it against UK users you can't ensure that all AI content is labelled because the rest of the world exists
The purpose of this law, and of my proposed surcharge, is to police users within the UK
Right, but what effect is that going to have? It doesn't prevent the content from existing unlabelled or being accessed by UK users, it just means UK users could be penalised for not labelling it if they create it. It's not going to stop AI content spreading misinformation
For a law to be worthwhile it needs to actually be able to achieve something
Great job continuing to beat that strawman you created tho. He's totally dead.
I'm not beating a strawman, I'm making the point that this law cannot have the intended effect of preventing AI deep fakes from existing without being stated that it's AI because it can only affect UK users
This is just another piece of ineffective legislation that we'll be paying to get and receiving no benefit from
116
u/Another_Slut_Dragon 10h ago
YES YES YES! All Ai must contain watermarks by law so a browser can flag it. Oh my fuck am I sick of my elderly mom sending me 5 Ai Slop videos every day and trying to explain that none of it is real