> The social media giant said earlier this month that advertisers will be barred from using generative AI tools in its Ads Manager tool to produce ads for politics, elections, housing, employment, credit, or social issues. Ads related to health, pharmaceuticals, and financial services also are not allowed access to the generative AI features.
This seems to be a policy of preventing people from using their specific tool to generate those kinds of ads. It doesn't seem to say anything about attempting to prevent people from using other tools (say, those from OpenAI) to generate those same ads.
Detection of generated images works well, as reported by lots of works on arxiv. It's not catching them all, but lots of them.
One way to understand it is that DDPMs and their underlying neural network do leave patterns in the high frequencies, often invisible to the eye. Deconvolutions typically generate low noise "marbles".
This will probably just hurt innocent people and people playing by the books. I'm a member in a small public Facebook group that gets a handful of full graphic sexual images posted daily by spam bots. If Facebook can't stop so blatant rulebreaking, how are they supposed to stop AI and deepfakes? Granted, it's easier to stop something when it's banned.
If I am reading this correctly then I think it is simply preventing the companies that buy ads on Meta from using Meta’s own generative AI features to make certain types of ads. It’s not really feasible to accurately block AI generated content anymore with good accuracy afaik.
I don't think it will hurt anyone, people will just use OpenAI or whatever other service instead of a Facebook-provided one. They are just ensuring they can muddy the waters when there is eventual blowback.
Pretty sure group type can be changed from public to private or even totally hidden - perhaps people in charge should consider tweaking visibility for a while.
I fail to see how this will “hurt” innocent people. People using ai to mislead others are not innocent. Meta should ban fake use profiles. Criminals are already leveraging procedurally generated images to milk incels of their money with fake profiles. Soon politicians and their simps will too. Ban them all.
ROFL. Yeah, ok. Meta’s intentions are totally trustworthy, sure. They get to define both “trustworthy” and “ads”.
Remember they know more about the exploitation of human emotion than any organization in human history. And remember what they did with that knowledge.
Their instinct is only to find a responsive signal. They give no consideration to consequence.
Even with the best intentions they’ll still cultivate rage because they have never discovered anything else. At this point they can never discover anything else.
Meta is an irredeemable organization. Reject them at every opportunity.
Yes, and every employee reading here should be aware that they’re complicit in enabling that horrible organization and that they never have any moral authority to engage in any argument whatsoever.
And i'm sure they'll be very successful, just as they've been successful in stopping the dozens of outright fraud announcements I absolutely don't see nearly every day, which are not at all promoting all kinds of false products, false promises and fake services through my news feed while also not at all using deeply misleading AI imagery for their ad graphics.
Meta is only preventing use of their own generative ML tools, if you use your own tools and upload the generated images they almost certainly can't tell.
Title looks like misinformation. Sub-title says something different (and more plausible).
Title: "Meta will enforce ban on AI-powered political ads in every nation, no exceptions".
Sub-title: "With several nations expected to hold elections next year, Meta confirms its generative AI advertising tools cannot be used for campaigns targeting specific services and issues.".
The idea of preventing advertisers from using AI at all ("no exceptions") seems fairly absurd -- for example, if an advertiser asks ChatGPT to spell-check something a human wrote, how would Meta know that ChatGPT did the spell-checking? But if Meta's just trying to manage how people access its own tools, then that'd seem like a different scenario.
Presumably they mean that their tools couldn't be used directly, rather than not at all, though. For example, if Alice uses one of Meta's tools for some other declared purpose to spell-check a word that Alice'll then include in an ad that she'll ask Bob to deploy on Meta, then how would they detect such indirect usage? Though they might still try to detect their own tools' signatures on, say, images or longer bodies of text.
Readit News
This seems to be a policy of preventing people from using their specific tool to generate those kinds of ads. It doesn't seem to say anything about attempting to prevent people from using other tools (say, those from OpenAI) to generate those same ads.
Remember they know more about the exploitation of human emotion than any organization in human history. And remember what they did with that knowledge.
Their instinct is only to find a responsive signal. They give no consideration to consequence.
Even with the best intentions they’ll still cultivate rage because they have never discovered anything else. At this point they can never discover anything else.
Meta is an irredeemable organization. Reject them at every opportunity.
Deleted Comment
Title: "Meta will enforce ban on AI-powered political ads in every nation, no exceptions".
Sub-title: "With several nations expected to hold elections next year, Meta confirms its generative AI advertising tools cannot be used for campaigns targeting specific services and issues.".
The idea of preventing advertisers from using AI at all ("no exceptions") seems fairly absurd -- for example, if an advertiser asks ChatGPT to spell-check something a human wrote, how would Meta know that ChatGPT did the spell-checking? But if Meta's just trying to manage how people access its own tools, then that'd seem like a different scenario.
Presumably they mean that their tools couldn't be used directly, rather than not at all, though. For example, if Alice uses one of Meta's tools for some other declared purpose to spell-check a word that Alice'll then include in an ad that she'll ask Bob to deploy on Meta, then how would they detect such indirect usage? Though they might still try to detect their own tools' signatures on, say, images or longer bodies of text.