3 ms·
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 b
by 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 agoOut of curiosity, what stops you from taking a photo of a AI generated picture?
- eru 10mo agoWell, 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 agoHow do you securely read this "3D scan" sensor data, being 100% it hasn't been tampered with?
- nojs 10mo agoThe same thing that stops your phone’s Face ID working with a photo of a face, I suppose
- embedding-shape 10mo agoYet it doesn't actually solve the problem. Whatever technical implementation you can think of, can somehow be misused so you have AI pictures labeled as "Genuinely not AI". If you do come up with a 100% fool-proof implementation of this, you'll be able to get a lot of money for it, so do give it a try! Many have tried before you, yet it always turns out to be short of impossible. But who knows, maybe there is a way...
- exe34 10mo agoI didn't say it would work - I said it would be made mandatory and will be used against us.
- embedding-shape 10mo agoRight, I guess I was still with the original topic/subject: > We absolutely need certified no-AI digital proofs.
- gruez 10mo ago>it will be implemented by chips-on-camera, that will tie you to a picture. You can mitigate this by having a pool of devices (eg. 1000) share keys. AFAIK TPM chips and U2F/FIDO keys do this to provide some anonymity while limiting the blast radius if a key does get leaked.
- exe34 10mo agoWell that's no good for big brother, is it.