3 ms·

That's OK - I am happy to work with that 'nasty' end. Generally, there is no such signature as 'iamhuman' in media files, however there are plenty of AI/Deepfak

by picki 11mo ago

That's OK - I am happy to work with that 'nasty' end. Generally, there is no such signature as 'iamhuman' in media files, however there are plenty of AI/Deepfake/Edit signatures that can be traced (either through simple metadata, or SynthID or per-pixel distribution). Generally, when the one knows how to read deep data, the file can immediately tell how it was 'created'. Interestingly enough, even screenshots of an AI-generated image have a good rate of detection in susmeter.

rolph 11mo ago
>there is no such signature as 'iamhuman' in media files< no official specification exists, but humans do irrational things. e.g. pee wees playhouse, had the secret word of the day. [X] and whenever a visitor evoked the secret variable of the day, the playhouse gang would crackup laughing and finger pointing. an unwritten tradition, to give alternate meaning and context to secret word of the day was in effect. a human, can demonstrate humanity, to other humans, in subjective fashion, that AI will never deduce through logic. when humans can reliably identify to each other as human, all else that fails to be human, is by inductive logic AI. of course there are phalluses to concidder but hue manz havework around around
- picki 11mo ago
  I get the point you’re making about human self-identification and social signals. That’s an interesting alternative framing of the problem. What I’m trying to validate at this stage isn’t the philosophical question of “what proves humanity,” but a much narrower one: "Is there demand for a tool that can probabilistically assess whether an image or video has been AI-generated or materially manipulated, using technical signals available today?" For this idea validation I’m specifically testing whether probabilistic AI/media detection (imperfect as it is) solves a real problem for people today, without requiring new standards or behavior changes.

by picki 11mo ago

rolph 11mo ago

>there is no such signature as 'iamhuman' in media files< no official specification exists, but humans do irrational things. e.g. pee wees playhouse, had the secret word of the day. [X] and whenever a visitor evoked the secret variable of the day, the playhouse gang would crackup laughing and finger pointing. an unwritten tradition, to give alternate meaning and context to secret word of the day was in effect. a human, can demonstrate humanity, to other humans, in subjective fashion, that AI will never deduce through logic. when humans can reliably identify to each other as human, all else that fails to be human, is by inductive logic AI. of course there are phalluses to concidder but hue manz havework around around

picki 11mo ago
I get the point you’re making about human self-identification and social signals. That’s an interesting alternative framing of the problem. What I’m trying to validate at this stage isn’t the philosophical question of “what proves humanity,” but a much narrower one: "Is there demand for a tool that can probabilistically assess whether an image or video has been AI-generated or materially manipulated, using technical signals available today?" For this idea validation I’m specifically testing whether probabilistic AI/media detection (imperfect as it is) solves a real problem for people today, without requiring new standards or behavior changes.