4 ms·

On first thought, I would support a US/EU bill that requires all AI-generated imagery to have the creation date, model used, and some relevant prompt informatio

On first thought, I would support a US/EU bill that requires all AI-generated imagery to have the creation date, model used, and some relevant prompt information embedded into it using steganography. Any service generating imagery must keep an archive of such imagery for X years. FCC (or similar) penalty for publishing any image that was matched to an AI without attribution or with steganographic information missing would rival DCMA costs. Why? Most users won't care, but news agencies will get caught red handed posting these as real / without thinking about the repercussions. By keeping an archive, a reverse image search would trivially and automatically catch them.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
Cool - you’ve just created a black market for an AI that generates imperceptibly good images without such information embedded, and killed open-source AI because open-source AI can always be edited to remove the info. But seriously - how would your system work with any open-source AI, or leaked proprietary AI? It wouldn't. The best you could do is sue someone and claim they had an unlabelled AI image, and hire an expert to try to make a case to rebut against their expert. It just falls apart and the legal system probably isn't interested in figuring out by minor artifacts whether that is AI or just compression, distortion, a bad photoshop job, a prank, etc. This is especially important as AI gets more imperceptible in the future. If I take an AI generated face, and shrink it by 50%, all artifacts are plausibly compression, not that the AI had bad hair edge generation, so you can't prove I had an AI. Too many loopholes. A proper response would be, I argue, simply basing the penalties on the harm caused. Doesn't matter whether the image was made by Photoshop, AI, or an experienced photographer with camera tricks, the harm is the cost. Edit: I keep adding more reasons, but here's another. This proposal would basically ban remixing AI images because embedding it inside another Photoshopped image, putting your face in the AI photo, resizing it, so forth might mess with the watermark. And naturally, any software capable of preserving the watermark could be easily altered to remove it, and many of these watermarks work solely by their secretive design, so good luck seeing the algorithms ever in your open-source package. Practically banning remixing of different types of photos in open-source software is a terrible idea.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  These are excellent points. I'm convinced that my first-order gut feeling is off-base and not worth it. Shame they are lost below my now-invisible comment.
helloworld11 4y ago
For god's sake why? What's the "problem" you'd be trying to solve with that regulatory nightmare of rules you claim to want? If someone renders a completely invented AI image and uses it for whatever they like, or if businesses and media use these creations of their own for all sorts of commercial purposes, who should care and why should punishment be involved?

gjsman-1000 4y ago

Cool - you’ve just created a black market for an AI that generates imperceptibly good images without such information embedded, and killed open-source AI because open-source AI can always be edited to remove the info. But seriously - how would your system work with any open-source AI, or leaked proprietary AI? It wouldn't. The best you could do is sue someone and claim they had an unlabelled AI image, and hire an expert to try to make a case to rebut against their expert. It just falls apart and the legal system probably isn't interested in figuring out by minor artifacts whether that is AI or just compression, distortion, a bad photoshop job, a prank, etc. This is especially important as AI gets more imperceptible in the future. If I take an AI generated face, and shrink it by 50%, all artifacts are plausibly compression, not that the AI had bad hair edge generation, so you can't prove I had an AI. Too many loopholes. A proper response would be, I argue, simply basing the penalties on the harm caused. Doesn't matter whether the image was made by Photoshop, AI, or an experienced photographer with camera tricks, the harm is the cost. Edit: I keep adding more reasons, but here's another. This proposal would basically ban remixing AI images because embedding it inside another Photoshopped image, putting your face in the AI photo, resizing it, so forth might mess with the watermark. And naturally, any software capable of preserving the watermark could be easily altered to remove it, and many of these watermarks work solely by their secretive design, so good luck seeing the algorithms ever in your open-source package. Practically banning remixing of different types of photos in open-source software is a terrible idea.

jvanderbot 4y ago
These are excellent points. I'm convinced that my first-order gut feeling is off-base and not worth it. Shame they are lost below my now-invisible comment.

helloworld11 4y ago

For god's sake why? What's the "problem" you'd be trying to solve with that regulatory nightmare of rules you claim to want? If someone renders a completely invented AI image and uses it for whatever they like, or if businesses and media use these creations of their own for all sorts of commercial purposes, who should care and why should punishment be involved?