this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2026
270 points (98.6% liked)

Technology

86780 readers
4410 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] psycotica0@lemmy.ca 12 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

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?

[–] XLE@piefed.social 6 points 6 hours ago

If I use AI...Is that AI?

I'd say yes, lol

But the article is about AI-generated images, so I believe anything that gets spat out from the result of a prompt (even a prompt with an image input) should be tagged. Starting with the biggest companies, of course.

[–] muusemuuse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

I think the line is are you enhancing the image or enhancing the truth?

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I'd be okay if there were a running list of disclaimer boilerplates:

~ Generated with AI
~ Altered with AI
~ Edited with AI
~ Cleaned with AI
~ Fixed [with non-AI image editing software]

[–] deathbird@mander.xyz 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I can't see any meaningful distinction between altered, edited, and cleaned.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 hours ago

Generated: Produced entirely from prompts and LORAs
Altered: Changed significantly so that the spirit of the moment represented is starkly different from the original
Edited: Changed while mostly preserving the essence of the moment represented.
Cleaned: Making minor alterations such as removing obstructions, correcting colors or illuminating details

And then, for completion, another boilerplate would be used in official images that have been shopped (or GIMPed or otherwise altered with image-editing software.)

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 3 points 11 hours ago

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

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 4 points 15 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.