4 ms·

It seems to me like the opposite solution is more robust. Rather than putting digital watermarks on AI-generated content, put them on human-generated content, a

It seems to me like the opposite solution is more robust. Rather than putting digital watermarks on AI-generated content, put them on human-generated content, and you can treat anything that doesn't have one as possibly AI-generated.

JohnFen 3y ago
How is that more robust? It seems to me it would be more robust to have it be on AI-generated content, where it can be done automatically. Also, there are fewer AI generators than there are people, so the total effort would be lower. It's AI that's presenting the problem here, why burden uninvolved others to provide a solution?
- fluoridation 3y ago
  Because it's much easier to remove a cryptographic signature than it is to falsify one, and there's a greater incentive in passing a generated file as being created by a human than the opposite.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    But it's a lot harder for people to do this than for a computer, which means people largely won't. Also, I still don't see how it's fair and reasonable to put this sort of burden on innocent others when they aren't the ones making the problem.
    - fluoridation 3y ago
      With software support it doesn't have to be any harder than just saving a file. You set up your keystore once and then your production software does the rest. I'm sure there's a lot of popular digital artists who'd like for people to be able distinguish their art from generated stuff that imitates their personal style. >Also, I still don't see how it's fair and reasonable to put this sort of burden on innocent others when they aren't the ones making the problem. Reality is what it is. There's no point in arguing about what's fair or not fair, what matters is what solves the problem. If you were fighting your evil clone and I had to shoot the fake one, would you say "why should I have to prove I'm myself? My fake should just turn himself in", knowing you're risking getting shot because he'll do the exact same thing?
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        > I'm sure there's a lot of popular digital artists who'd like for people to be able distinguish their art from generated stuff that imitates their personal style. Sure, and this sort of approach makes sense for them. I'm thinking of everyone else. Not artists, but ordinary people doing ordinary things. > what matters is what solves the problem. True, and fair enough. But I don't think putting this burden on humans would actually solve this problem, because not enough humans can or will do this.
        fluoridation 3y ago
        Ordinary people just send files to people they know and have no interest in proving the authorship of those files, nor are the people who receive them interesting in verifying the authorship. Hell, I have GPG set up on at least two computers and I've never sent a signed message to another person. This is a problem only for people who publish content and want to make sure everyone knows it was they who made something, and for people who consume/use content and want to make sure that a given piece of content was made by a human.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > This is a problem only for people who publish content and want to make sure everyone knows it was they who made something, and for people who consume/use content and want to make sure that a given piece of content was made by a human. Right, which includes an awful lot of ordinary people. But if the proposal is intended only to cover the more visible people, that's fair enough for now. We still need a more general solution.
- kouru225 3y ago
  Because AI media generation can scale up way past human media generation, and probably will.
- TJSomething 3y ago
  In addition to siblings notes, we need to assume that a large chunk of AI generated content will be generated by bad faith actors using custom implementations. If you're generating a lot of images, it's going to be cheaper to run your own infrastructure. Also, many digital asset management pipelines are homebrew hacks built into bespoke CMSs and are terrible at maintaining metadata.
- washadjeffmad 3y ago
  Given the extreme value of the protections of modern copyright, should there not be more methods to prove it? If there was a public key registry to allow cryptographically verifiable creation dates that contain detailed metadata, why, as an artist interest in preserving and protecting rights to my art, wouldn't I? Wasting that on AI is the ideological equivalent of leaving ASCAP voicemails of my farts.
kouru225 3y ago
Been saying this for awhile. As dumb as some nfts are, I do think that having a public registry that logs a paper trail for all human-generated media is a necessary solution in response to AI.
maarten3 3y ago
Working on this: https://proofivy.com/ https://proofivy.com/

JohnFen 3y ago

How is that more robust? It seems to me it would be more robust to have it be on AI-generated content, where it can be done automatically. Also, there are fewer AI generators than there are people, so the total effort would be lower. It's AI that's presenting the problem here, why burden uninvolved others to provide a solution?

fluoridation 3y ago
Because it's much easier to remove a cryptographic signature than it is to falsify one, and there's a greater incentive in passing a generated file as being created by a human than the opposite.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  But it's a lot harder for people to do this than for a computer, which means people largely won't. Also, I still don't see how it's fair and reasonable to put this sort of burden on innocent others when they aren't the ones making the problem.
  - fluoridation 3y ago
    With software support it doesn't have to be any harder than just saving a file. You set up your keystore once and then your production software does the rest. I'm sure there's a lot of popular digital artists who'd like for people to be able distinguish their art from generated stuff that imitates their personal style. >Also, I still don't see how it's fair and reasonable to put this sort of burden on innocent others when they aren't the ones making the problem. Reality is what it is. There's no point in arguing about what's fair or not fair, what matters is what solves the problem. If you were fighting your evil clone and I had to shoot the fake one, would you say "why should I have to prove I'm myself? My fake should just turn himself in", knowing you're risking getting shot because he'll do the exact same thing?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > I'm sure there's a lot of popular digital artists who'd like for people to be able distinguish their art from generated stuff that imitates their personal style. Sure, and this sort of approach makes sense for them. I'm thinking of everyone else. Not artists, but ordinary people doing ordinary things. > what matters is what solves the problem. True, and fair enough. But I don't think putting this burden on humans would actually solve this problem, because not enough humans can or will do this.
      - fluoridation 3y ago
        Ordinary people just send files to people they know and have no interest in proving the authorship of those files, nor are the people who receive them interesting in verifying the authorship. Hell, I have GPG set up on at least two computers and I've never sent a signed message to another person. This is a problem only for people who publish content and want to make sure everyone knows it was they who made something, and for people who consume/use content and want to make sure that a given piece of content was made by a human.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        > This is a problem only for people who publish content and want to make sure everyone knows it was they who made something, and for people who consume/use content and want to make sure that a given piece of content was made by a human. Right, which includes an awful lot of ordinary people. But if the proposal is intended only to cover the more visible people, that's fair enough for now. We still need a more general solution.
kouru225 3y ago
Because AI media generation can scale up way past human media generation, and probably will.
TJSomething 3y ago
In addition to siblings notes, we need to assume that a large chunk of AI generated content will be generated by bad faith actors using custom implementations. If you're generating a lot of images, it's going to be cheaper to run your own infrastructure. Also, many digital asset management pipelines are homebrew hacks built into bespoke CMSs and are terrible at maintaining metadata.
washadjeffmad 3y ago
Given the extreme value of the protections of modern copyright, should there not be more methods to prove it? If there was a public key registry to allow cryptographically verifiable creation dates that contain detailed metadata, why, as an artist interest in preserving and protecting rights to my art, wouldn't I? Wasting that on AI is the ideological equivalent of leaving ASCAP voicemails of my farts.

kouru225 3y ago

Been saying this for awhile. As dumb as some nfts are, I do think that having a public registry that logs a paper trail for all human-generated media is a necessary solution in response to AI.

maarten3 3y ago

Working on this: https://proofivy.com/ https://proofivy.com/