The company’s chief scientific officer, Eric Horvitz, says the work was prompted by legislation—like California’s AI Transparency Act, which will take effect in August—and the speed at which AI has developed to combine video and voice with striking fidelity.
“You might call this self-regulation,” Horvitz told MIT Technology Review. But it’s clear he sees pursuing the work as boosting Microsoft’s image: “We’re also trying to be a selected, desired provider to people who want to know what’s going on in the world.”
Nevertheless, Horvitz declined to commit to Microsoft using its own recommendation across its platforms. The company sits at the center of a giant AI content ecosystem: It runs Copilot, which can generate images and text; it operates Azure, the cloud service through which customers can access OpenAI and other major AI models; it owns LinkedIn, one of the world’s largest professional platforms; and it holds a significant stake in OpenAI. But when asked about in-house implementation, Horvitz said in a statement, “Product groups and leaders across the company were involved in this study to inform product road maps and infrastructure, and our engineering teams are taking action on the report’s findings.”
It’s important to note that there are inherent limits to these tools; just as they would not tell you what your Rembrandt means, they are not built to determine if content is accurate or not. They only reveal if it has been manipulated. It’s a point that Horvitz says he has to make to lawmakers and others who are skeptical of Big Tech as an arbiter of fact.
“It’s not about making any decisions about what’s true and not true,” he said. “It’s about coming up with labels that just tell folks where stuff came from.”