3 ms·

> 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

> 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...
    - CharlesW 3y ago
      > 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. Cameras have been doing that for at least a decade, but that's not foolproof either. For example, Canon's Original Decision Data was cracked in 2010. https://photographybay.com/2010/11/30/canon-original-data-security-cracked-rendered-useless/ https://photographybay.com/2010/11/30/canon-original-data-se... The reason it's hard to fake RAW files isn't because one can't convert images to RAW files, but because RAW files contain lots of additional information that would be difficult to fake. For example, RAW files include mosaiced sensor data which has flaws that are unique to a particular sensor.¹ A digital forensics expert can evaluate a hundred aspects of RAW files to see if anything smells fishy. ¹ https://www.labmanager.com/sensor-imperfections-are-perfect-for-forensic-camera-analysis-28329 https://www.labmanager.com/sensor-imperfections-are-perfect-...

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...
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > 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. Cameras have been doing that for at least a decade, but that's not foolproof either. For example, Canon's Original Decision Data was cracked in 2010. https://photographybay.com/2010/11/30/canon-original-data-security-cracked-rendered-useless/ https://photographybay.com/2010/11/30/canon-original-data-se... The reason it's hard to fake RAW files isn't because one can't convert images to RAW files, but because RAW files contain lots of additional information that would be difficult to fake. For example, RAW files include mosaiced sensor data which has flaws that are unique to a particular sensor.¹ A digital forensics expert can evaluate a hundred aspects of RAW files to see if anything smells fishy. ¹ https://www.labmanager.com/sensor-imperfections-are-perfect-for-forensic-camera-analysis-28329 https://www.labmanager.com/sensor-imperfections-are-perfect-...