5 ms·

We absolutely need certified no-AI digital proofs.

by maelito 10mo ago

frenzcan 10mo ago
This seems like such a tricky problem. There was a no-ai camera posted here recently which verified the photos were genuinely taken on the device. It was pointed out someone could photograph an ai image via the camera to produce a verified image. Maybe it needs to be similar to SSL certificates where trusted authorities can verify and revoke verification for digital assets.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- stanac 10mo ago
  I was thinking the same thing. Apple and Google can start (as tech companies) to add signatures to images. As long as private key doesn't leak we are good. And each manufacturer can have different cert issued by higher authority e.g. Google, so it can be revoked when it leaks. They could include digital camera manufacturers (sony, nicon, canon, ...) and define a standard. Signature can be a meta tag based on hash of the image. This would limit authenticity to images taken by official software.
  - webstrand 10mo ago
    You can still just manipulate the official hardware to produce the image you desire, i.e. record a video that's projected onto a wall. And it'd be fairly easy to do with existing technology too.
embedding-shape 10mo ago
We absolutely also need full and complete peace on earth and no more wars, but what we need isn't always what is feasible to get in real life. "No-AI proofs" falls into that bucket of "Would be nice to have, but very infeasible to actually create".
- exe34 10mo ago
  it will be implemented by chips-on-camera, that will tie you to a picture. it will be pushed forward by law enforcement ("think of the children!") and it will be great for profits. not so much for privacy.
  - gray_-_wolf 10mo ago
    Out of curiosity, what stops you from taking a photo of a AI generated picture?
    - eru 10mo ago
      Well, you could make your verified camera do a 3d scan. Then at lest you'd need AI to 3d print a scene or something.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      - embedding-shape 10mo ago
        How do you securely read this "3D scan" sensor data, being 100% it hasn't been tampered with?
        exe34 10mo ago
        you can tie the sensor to a chip that signs the data as it goes out.
        eru 9mo ago
        Use whatever technology you used to make the 2d camera tamperproof.
    - nojs 10mo ago
      The same thing that stops your phone’s Face ID working with a photo of a face, I suppose
intended 10mo ago
Wouldn’t it end up being some form of nuisance proof? Introducing friction to create verification check points or examine and establish the chain of evidence? But that will only matter for highly legal things or important things. Everything else will be too much of a bother to follow information hygiene. It’s like we’ve introduced an information weed, whose only goal is to create content that matches our dopamine receptors. Maybe our instincts will shift to assuming any shiny or eye catching content is fruit of the weed? Designed to attract us?
orbital-decay 10mo ago
Of course. I already imagine an end-to-end hardware DRM pipeline where images can only be modified with the software made by "trusted" certified parties. Mandated by law and tied to your real ID, of course. Analog loophole can be dealt with later, first things first. /s
konfusinomicon 10mo ago
back to the blockchain!

We absolutely need certified no-AI digital proofs.

by maelito 10mo ago

We absolutely need certified no-AI digital proofs.

This seems like such a tricky problem. There was a no-ai camera posted here recently which verified the photos were genuinely taken on the device. It was pointed out someone could photograph an ai image via the camera to produce a verified image. Maybe it needs to be similar to SSL certificates where trusted authorities can verify and revoke verification for digital assets.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
stanac 10mo ago
I was thinking the same thing. Apple and Google can start (as tech companies) to add signatures to images. As long as private key doesn't leak we are good. And each manufacturer can have different cert issued by higher authority e.g. Google, so it can be revoked when it leaks. They could include digital camera manufacturers (sony, nicon, canon, ...) and define a standard. Signature can be a meta tag based on hash of the image. This would limit authenticity to images taken by official software.
- webstrand 10mo ago
  You can still just manipulate the official hardware to produce the image you desire, i.e. record a video that's projected onto a wall. And it'd be fairly easy to do with existing technology too.

embedding-shape 10mo ago

We absolutely also need full and complete peace on earth and no more wars, but what we need isn't always what is feasible to get in real life. "No-AI proofs" falls into that bucket of "Would be nice to have, but very infeasible to actually create".

exe34 10mo ago
it will be implemented by chips-on-camera, that will tie you to a picture. it will be pushed forward by law enforcement ("think of the children!") and it will be great for profits. not so much for privacy.
- gray_-_wolf 10mo ago
  Out of curiosity, what stops you from taking a photo of a AI generated picture?
  - eru 10mo ago
    Well, you could make your verified camera do a 3d scan. Then at lest you'd need AI to 3d print a scene or something.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - embedding-shape 10mo ago
      How do you securely read this "3D scan" sensor data, being 100% it hasn't been tampered with?
      - exe34 10mo ago
        you can tie the sensor to a chip that signs the data as it goes out.
      - eru 9mo ago
        Use whatever technology you used to make the 2d camera tamperproof.
  - nojs 10mo ago
    The same thing that stops your phone’s Face ID working with a photo of a face, I suppose

intended 10mo ago

Wouldn’t it end up being some form of nuisance proof? Introducing friction to create verification check points or examine and establish the chain of evidence? But that will only matter for highly legal things or important things. Everything else will be too much of a bother to follow information hygiene. It’s like we’ve introduced an information weed, whose only goal is to create content that matches our dopamine receptors. Maybe our instincts will shift to assuming any shiny or eye catching content is fruit of the weed? Designed to attract us?

orbital-decay 10mo ago

Of course. I already imagine an end-to-end hardware DRM pipeline where images can only be modified with the software made by "trusted" certified parties. Mandated by law and tied to your real ID, of course. Analog loophole can be dealt with later, first things first. /s

konfusinomicon 10mo ago

back to the blockchain!