5 ms·

Good luck enforcing any of these bans. AI models are multiplicities (model + lots of sampling, decoding parameters, etc). In general, it's extremely difficult

Good luck enforcing any of these bans. AI models are multiplicities (model + lots of sampling, decoding parameters, etc). In general, it's extremely difficult to prove that anything is AI generated at all. Even more impossible to prove which model was used with which settings.

colechristensen 3y ago
I don’t know, a whole lot of generative AI imagery contains obvious artifacts. Just go down to the noise floor of size and intensity, AI doesn’t look like thermal noise in a sensor or real lens artifacts and fuzziness. Not to mention obvious things like mangled hands or other complex structures.
- jsheard 3y ago
  There are also second-order giveaways that someone is using AI generation, in the case of photos the photographer would probably take numerous shots of the subject before submitting the best one, and if challenged they could produce the rest of them as evidence that they're the real deal. As far as I'm aware, using AI to generate a plausible series of photos with all of the details being consistent between them is much more difficult than generating just a single plausible photo. In the case of artwork, the author of even the most convincing, artifact-free AI generated piece will immediately crumble if asked to show WIPs, non-flattened project files or timelapses. I have seen some charlatans attempt to fake WIPs by using style transfer to turn their finished piece back into a "sketch" but the results aren't very convincing, the models aren't trained on the process of creating art conventionally so they're not good at faking it.
  - Der_Einzige 3y ago
    This is possible today, it's called "reference only controlnet".
chasing 3y ago
Plagiarism can also be tricky to identify and prove. But the reputational harm of lying if you’re caught can be massive and an effective deterrent if you actually care about your career. I’ll say that even in my personal life if I catch you flat-out lying to me about something I have a very difficult time reestablishing trust. It’s like you’ve revealed that deep down you think it’s an acceptable behavior and now everything that comes out of your mouth has to weighed as possible bullshit.
Waterluvian 3y ago
It’s not really about enforcement. It’s about saying it’s not allowed. That’s sufficient for many cultures.
CharlesW 3y ago
> In general, it's extremely difficult to prove that anything is AI generated at all. It seems like it could be pretty simple — if there's a question, you ask the creator to provide the original RAW and have a conversation about how they got to the final "developed" image. If there's still doubt, they could be asked to duplicate/approximate the process in a screen-sharing session. I'm not familiar with the current state of content provenance initiatives like Content Authenticity Initiative¹, but generative AI is likely to boost their popularity. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Authenticity_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Authenticity_Initiativ...
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  That's a good point. RAW is such a common format in the photography community but somewhat of a silly format for a generative AI to write to based on its file size. Also, is generative AI capable of dramatically upscaling the quality of it's output relative to its input? I would assume so but I've never really thought about it.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > RAW is such a common format in the photography community but somewhat of a silly format for a generative AI to write to based on its file size. You could cheat and convert the image to a RAW file, but it'd be very difficult to do so in a way that would fool a forensics investigator. > Also, is generative AI capable of dramatically upscaling the quality of it's output relative to its input? If the image output is too small, one could use tools like Topaz Gigapixel AI to scale it up
    - ibushong 3y ago
      I think it's pretty naive to think that AI tools wont soon be able to create/edit photos in RAW format that are impossible to detect. IMO, the only way to verify authenticity of stuff like this is to have hardware on the device (camera) which adds a signature/timestamp/etc to the data. This of course would require all devices to be in some sort of registry, which then becomes a privacy concern. It's gonna be a mess...
golemotron 3y ago
True. The Copyright Office is going to eventually have to walk back its recent guidance too. Whether they will realize they need to on their own or need to have Congress to act is the only question.

colechristensen 3y ago

I don’t know, a whole lot of generative AI imagery contains obvious artifacts. Just go down to the noise floor of size and intensity, AI doesn’t look like thermal noise in a sensor or real lens artifacts and fuzziness. Not to mention obvious things like mangled hands or other complex structures.

jsheard 3y ago
There are also second-order giveaways that someone is using AI generation, in the case of photos the photographer would probably take numerous shots of the subject before submitting the best one, and if challenged they could produce the rest of them as evidence that they're the real deal. As far as I'm aware, using AI to generate a plausible series of photos with all of the details being consistent between them is much more difficult than generating just a single plausible photo. In the case of artwork, the author of even the most convincing, artifact-free AI generated piece will immediately crumble if asked to show WIPs, non-flattened project files or timelapses. I have seen some charlatans attempt to fake WIPs by using style transfer to turn their finished piece back into a "sketch" but the results aren't very convincing, the models aren't trained on the process of creating art conventionally so they're not good at faking it.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  This is possible today, it's called "reference only controlnet".

chasing 3y ago

Plagiarism can also be tricky to identify and prove. But the reputational harm of lying if you’re caught can be massive and an effective deterrent if you actually care about your career. I’ll say that even in my personal life if I catch you flat-out lying to me about something I have a very difficult time reestablishing trust. It’s like you’ve revealed that deep down you think it’s an acceptable behavior and now everything that comes out of your mouth has to weighed as possible bullshit.

Waterluvian 3y ago

It’s not really about enforcement. It’s about saying it’s not allowed. That’s sufficient for many cultures.

CharlesW 3y ago

> In general, it's extremely difficult to prove that anything is AI generated at all. It seems like it could be pretty simple — if there's a question, you ask the creator to provide the original RAW and have a conversation about how they got to the final "developed" image. If there's still doubt, they could be asked to duplicate/approximate the process in a screen-sharing session. I'm not familiar with the current state of content provenance initiatives like Content Authenticity Initiative¹, but generative AI is likely to boost their popularity. ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Authenticity_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Authenticity_Initiativ...

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
That's a good point. RAW is such a common format in the photography community but somewhat of a silly format for a generative AI to write to based on its file size. Also, is generative AI capable of dramatically upscaling the quality of it's output relative to its input? I would assume so but I've never really thought about it.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > RAW is such a common format in the photography community but somewhat of a silly format for a generative AI to write to based on its file size. You could cheat and convert the image to a RAW file, but it'd be very difficult to do so in a way that would fool a forensics investigator. > Also, is generative AI capable of dramatically upscaling the quality of it's output relative to its input? If the image output is too small, one could use tools like Topaz Gigapixel AI to scale it up
  - ibushong 3y ago
    I think it's pretty naive to think that AI tools wont soon be able to create/edit photos in RAW format that are impossible to detect. IMO, the only way to verify authenticity of stuff like this is to have hardware on the device (camera) which adds a signature/timestamp/etc to the data. This of course would require all devices to be in some sort of registry, which then becomes a privacy concern. It's gonna be a mess...

golemotron 3y ago

True. The Copyright Office is going to eventually have to walk back its recent guidance too. Whether they will realize they need to on their own or need to have Congress to act is the only question.