4 ms·

> They will not even have a bulletproof way to detect AI imagery as it evolves every single day as an arm's race and detection is a full-time job. Even a FAANG

> They will not even have a bulletproof way to detect AI imagery as it evolves every single day as an arm's race and detection is a full-time job. Even a FAANG or a state actor would need to dedicate team(s) to detection technology and still have false negatives. Are people actually trying to detect AI-generated content? That would not only be pointless and futile; the threat of false positives would be enormously detrimental to anyone creating legitimate work. It is such a ridiculously bad idea I'm dumbfounded that anyone smart would be trying to do it.

kbelder 3y ago
Yes, multiple teams are working on it, private and public. >It is such a ridiculously bad idea I'm dumbfounded that anyone smart would be trying to do it. Agree with you there.
cwkoss 3y ago
Yep. There is a cohort of #noaiart amateur-but-wants-to-be-professional artists on twitter who believe their mediocre talents would be paying their expenses if it only wasnt for that pesky ai imggen. (Ignoring that a vanishingly small proportion of imggen art is replacing commissioned art - most is art that would simply never have been made). Like a horde of locusts, they will randomly pile onto AI artwork with hate comments for a brief period of time before moving onto the next one. People are 'offering their services' where you can DM them a link to an image and they'll eyeball it and tell you if its made by AI. Laughable hubris, if it wasn't for the inevitable ramifications of false positives.
- antifa 3y ago
  > Like a horde of locusts My sympathies will be with the people whose career aspirations were just demoted to hobby, not the person who clicked "regenerate" 5 times then decided to upload.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- slikrick 3y ago
  no there isnt
  - cwkoss 3y ago
    I have first hand experience with them.
    - __loam 3y ago
      To be fair to the so called unwashed masses, you seem pretty annoying yourself.
      - cwkoss 3y ago
        Were you trying to reply to someone else?
        __loam 3y ago
        Nope.
        cwkoss 3y ago
        Ah, looked at your profile, I see you're one of the locusts.
        __loam 3y ago
        Sorry that I don't want all our cultural artifacts to be produced by an algorithm I guess.
oneeyedpigeon 3y ago
I know companies that are trying to do this, yes. The detection tools are terrible, but places really do not want writers submitting AI-written content, for example.
- MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
  > but places really do not want writers submitting AI-written content, for example And I want the power of flight, but it isn't going to happen!
permo-w 3y ago
if there's money to be made, then there'll be people who'll try and make it. doesn't matter how aware of the philosophy or ethics you are. humanist intelligence rarely comes into the equation when money is on the table
coeneedell 3y ago
Yes people are working on it. The thing you’re missing is that many of the contexts where the money actually is being spent is not really relevant to the public discussion around AI generated content. It’s more about making sure that nobody gets a bank loan using an AI generated voice and face, or that people don’t get scammed by a deep fake of their relatives, or that your government office isn’t being slammed with subtle propaganda, for instance. The trick to your concern is to change your expectations of accuracy. Flagging something as fraudulent with an ML is not treated by these systems as if it’s actually being fraudulent.
rngname22 3y ago
You need to think about different contexts. Think about security or trust and safety or anti-scam or anti-fraud. AI generated image, video, and audio can be used to circumvent a lot of systems used in these domains. Many of these domains are for protecting users from being scammed, being impersonated, being tracked, etc. Think about criminal court. Evidence may become impermissible if it can't be proven whether an image or video or audio document is a forgery or captured reality. It's a bit flippant and absurd to insult the intelligence of people working on AI detection. I'd be a bit dumbfounded by someone dismissing an effort w/o spending time to think about why that effort may exist.
- MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
  > Think about security or trust and safety or anti-scam or anti-fraud. It doesn't matter what context I think about it in. It isn't going to work! And it will make things worse for everyone involved. Hypothetically let's say we get to a point where everyone believes the detection is 100% accurate. Well that's all that means: everyone believes it. Meanwhile AI has just gotten better, and we're all more fooled than we were before. All we are really accomplishing is enhancing the training necessary for AI to elude detection. And there will be an inherent bias toward false positives, because high detection rate will be the selling point. The truth is secondary, and there's no way to verify the results.
  - rngname22 3y ago
    It does work. If you absolutely need to know if an image is AI generated, you can just have a central authority in the system watch the person draw the picture on a piece of paper. Or drive to your house and hand you the paper and pencil and watch you draw it in person. There are workflows or system designs that absolutely can and will solve for human-verified creation, they just might be incredibly costly or unscalable compared to existing solutions. It's all just tradeoffs. Might make existing business models no longer work. Might open new ones.
    - MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago

kbelder 3y ago

Yes, multiple teams are working on it, private and public. >It is such a ridiculously bad idea I'm dumbfounded that anyone smart would be trying to do it. Agree with you there.

cwkoss 3y ago

Yep. There is a cohort of #noaiart amateur-but-wants-to-be-professional artists on twitter who believe their mediocre talents would be paying their expenses if it only wasnt for that pesky ai imggen. (Ignoring that a vanishingly small proportion of imggen art is replacing commissioned art - most is art that would simply never have been made). Like a horde of locusts, they will randomly pile onto AI artwork with hate comments for a brief period of time before moving onto the next one. People are 'offering their services' where you can DM them a link to an image and they'll eyeball it and tell you if its made by AI. Laughable hubris, if it wasn't for the inevitable ramifications of false positives.

antifa 3y ago
> Like a horde of locusts My sympathies will be with the people whose career aspirations were just demoted to hobby, not the person who clicked "regenerate" 5 times then decided to upload.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
slikrick 3y ago
no there isnt
- cwkoss 3y ago
  I have first hand experience with them.
  - __loam 3y ago
    To be fair to the so called unwashed masses, you seem pretty annoying yourself.
    - cwkoss 3y ago
      Were you trying to reply to someone else?
      - __loam 3y ago
        Nope.
        cwkoss 3y ago
        Ah, looked at your profile, I see you're one of the locusts.
        __loam 3y ago
        Sorry that I don't want all our cultural artifacts to be produced by an algorithm I guess.

oneeyedpigeon 3y ago

I know companies that are trying to do this, yes. The detection tools are terrible, but places really do not want writers submitting AI-written content, for example.

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
> but places really do not want writers submitting AI-written content, for example And I want the power of flight, but it isn't going to happen!

permo-w 3y ago

if there's money to be made, then there'll be people who'll try and make it. doesn't matter how aware of the philosophy or ethics you are. humanist intelligence rarely comes into the equation when money is on the table

coeneedell 3y ago

Yes people are working on it. The thing you’re missing is that many of the contexts where the money actually is being spent is not really relevant to the public discussion around AI generated content. It’s more about making sure that nobody gets a bank loan using an AI generated voice and face, or that people don’t get scammed by a deep fake of their relatives, or that your government office isn’t being slammed with subtle propaganda, for instance. The trick to your concern is to change your expectations of accuracy. Flagging something as fraudulent with an ML is not treated by these systems as if it’s actually being fraudulent.

rngname22 3y ago

You need to think about different contexts. Think about security or trust and safety or anti-scam or anti-fraud. AI generated image, video, and audio can be used to circumvent a lot of systems used in these domains. Many of these domains are for protecting users from being scammed, being impersonated, being tracked, etc. Think about criminal court. Evidence may become impermissible if it can't be proven whether an image or video or audio document is a forgery or captured reality. It's a bit flippant and absurd to insult the intelligence of people working on AI detection. I'd be a bit dumbfounded by someone dismissing an effort w/o spending time to think about why that effort may exist.

MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago
> Think about security or trust and safety or anti-scam or anti-fraud. It doesn't matter what context I think about it in. It isn't going to work! And it will make things worse for everyone involved. Hypothetically let's say we get to a point where everyone believes the detection is 100% accurate. Well that's all that means: everyone believes it. Meanwhile AI has just gotten better, and we're all more fooled than we were before. All we are really accomplishing is enhancing the training necessary for AI to elude detection. And there will be an inherent bias toward false positives, because high detection rate will be the selling point. The truth is secondary, and there's no way to verify the results.
- rngname22 3y ago
  It does work. If you absolutely need to know if an image is AI generated, you can just have a central authority in the system watch the person draw the picture on a piece of paper. Or drive to your house and hand you the paper and pencil and watch you draw it in person. There are workflows or system designs that absolutely can and will solve for human-verified creation, they just might be incredibly costly or unscalable compared to existing solutions. It's all just tradeoffs. Might make existing business models no longer work. Might open new ones.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 3y ago