Well, consider the case with murder: they're not demanding that people proactively implement a system to prevent it from happening, are they? You're just not allowed to do it, in the sense that the system will attempt to find you, prove your guilt, and punish you after the fact.
I imagine it would be the same for making (use of) models which don't add these watermarks, no? The punishable crime is providing or using the service.
That's absolutely what they are. That and other crimes. That's why they're mandatory, by law, in certain industries. That's _precisely_ why we started using them: to prevent the easily preventable.
I suppose this logic stands in the way of a corporation getting what it wants and so it's automatically offensive to the HN "job seeking" crowd; however, even a basic reading of the history shows it's completely true.
You can trivially enforce that at the AI provider level, which covers 99% of the problem the law is designed to address.
Of course it doesn't cover the issue of foreign state psyop operations but the fact that enforcing laws against organized crime and adversary state actors is hard isn't specific to AI.
Are you not aware of open-weights models and local generation? I think the vast majority of deepfake content is being genned in basements on RTX cards, not on public providers. People already have all this content, and have archives of it, and can run it airgapped. Cat is out of bag.
I would be very surprised if that would be the case. Maybe you mean deepfake content generated by organized crime or state actors, but that surely is a tiny fraction of what's being generated on Grok or other platforms.
I am well aware of them, and I'm well aware that they are very niche as I'm the only one of my surrounding to use one of those. And those very models are being developed by tech giants and VC backed companies, on which regulation have leverage.
The fact that a small black market exists doesn't mean regulating the mainstream market doesn't matters.
Also, most people like you fail to realizes that the EU only has mandate from the member states to regulate the economy. The EU has no business dealing with people using SDXL finetunes on RTX cards in their garage.
No. Again, this regulation is about regulating businesses because that's what the EU is about.
The general use or creation of deepfake for porn, harassment, or election manipulation, is outside of what the EU can regulate as an institution, it is the responsibility of member states. (The same way the EU can impose rules on platform with respect to copyright violations, but cannot enact rules against piracy in general, these are always made by member states).
You don't have to prove anything? You just have to mark the outputs of your slop generator appropriately. "Proving" one way or another is their problem when it comes to enforcement.
Do you mean the same EU whose Euro6 mandate brought powerful auto giants like Volkswagen to their knees, and forced them to build better vehicles that are less harmful to Earth?
Or do you mean the EU that forced Apple to finally ditch its proprietary Lightning port on its iDevices and replace it with the universally compatable USB-C instead?
Or do you mean the EU that mandated the Right to Repair so manufacturers were forced to reduce planned obsolence?
Oh, and by the way, India mandated the same kind of norms too. And guess what? That nation is faring off better thanks to such societal-friendly governance.
