4 ms·
Accepting blindly destroying the concept of thruth should not be the hacker ethos either.
by int0x29 4mo ago
Accepting blindly destroying the concept of thruth should not be the hacker ethos either.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- 63stack 4mo agoNobody said that?
- int0x29 4mo agoSaying that watermarking fake things is bad kinda strongly implies it
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- bonoboTP 4mo agoIt's already possible to lie with text. Pixels are pixels. If we can't blindly believe pixels to show the truth, we will be simply back to the pre-photography era which managed to have a concept of truth regardless.
- BoredPositron 4mo agoWhen could you ever trust pixels?
- onetokeoverthe 4mo ago[dead]
- the_af 4mo agoYou and I did whenever we assumed the pixels were an upload of a digitized photo taken with an actual camera of, say, a historical event, or something in nature (e.g. some rare bird), a birthday party, etc. The photo could be staged (e.g. Cottingley Fairies), it could be altered physically (like cutting or painting over, e.g. Stalin), it could be cropped intentionally to tell a different story (plenty of examples), and more recently it could be photoshopped, etc. All of these were possible, though harder than it is now, but let's not pretend we didn't "trust pixels". We all did, just as we trusted newspaper photographs. Now that era must come to a firm end, and I believe it's a tragedy.
- BoredPositron 4mo agoPhotoshop is older then the web...
- the_af 4mo agoWhere did I mention the web?
- latexr 4mo agoFor the umpteenth time, scale and ease of access and propagation matters. A knife and a handgun aren’t comparable to a machine gun and a bomb. When you have equal access to all of those, the damage you can enact is exponentiated. You could lie with text before, but it took effort and time and skill to do it convincingly. You could also lie with images but they took even more time and effort and skill, greatly limiting the pool of people who could do it and the possible damage. When anyone anywhere can convincingly lie and have it do two laps around the world in a matter of minutes, the whole game changes. It’s becoming very hard to believe that people making arguments like yours are doing so in good faith. Maybe you’re not even a person but a shill bot. That’s a very real and trivial possibility today, which is the whole point and illustrates the problem.
- bonoboTP 4mo ago[flagged]
- latexr 4mo agoThat’s a non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with “mainstream media”. Which, by the way, is not a singular entity you can blindly trust or distrust, don’t fall into that indoctrination trap. This is basic despotic citizen control: Get everyone to distrust those who hold them accountable; label them as irredeemable liars so you can do as you please. Edit: Removed swipes while keeping the core argument.
- streetfighter64 4mo agoAh yes, accusing people of being shills and bots, and "indoctrinated", the core principles of good faith arguments. > Label them as irredeemable liars so you can do as you please. Do you not see the irony?
- latexr 4mo agoYou’re right. I should’ve done better and apologise. I have lightly edited the post above to keep the core point while removing the swipes. I disagree with the irony point on the basis that none of us here (I assume) is a despot or in a position of power high enough to lie to the point of discrediting entire institutions to the masses. We can be victims of it, but not perpetrators. Also, nowhere have I accused anyone in particular of being a liar. Still, given that my ill chosen words will have no doubt clouded your understanding of the point—which is on me—I won’t hold that against you, I take responsibility.
- tptacek 4mo agoIt either works reliably or it doesn't; if it doesn't, it's better that everybody be clear about that.
- xp84 4mo agoFair enough. While I would kind of wish AI could be reliably detected, deep down I know this is impossible and it would be pretty bad if we had, say, a prosecution that succeeded because "this 'provably-non-AI' photo places you at the scene of the crime" because only a few underground people know how to remove a watermark.
- InvertedRhodium 4mo agoI also wonder if being able to prove that an image or video isn’t AI generated would lend credence to it, while in reality there are other methods to produce falsified video.
- xp84 4mo agoWell, you just have to convince the jury. The defense attorney will try to throw up all the reasons it could be falsified, but the prosecutor will say "All of that is unlikely - the defense attorney would like you to believe that farfetched story, but this is still a compelling piece of evidence." This is how it always is with any kind of testimony and evidence.
- throwaway2037 4mo agoYou raise an interesting point about the artificial generation of evidence used in court. In 1992, Michael Crichton wrote the book Rising Sun, which centers around the editing of security camera video footage to coverup a murder.
- ninjalanternshk 4mo agoNot necessarily. Knowing an image for sure is fake has value, even if you can’t guarantee the reverse is true.
- 15155 4mo agoStalin had no issues photoshopping images almost 100 years ago.
- tredre3 4mo agoStalin had all the resources imaginables at his disposal. Now Nancy, a tech-phobic waitress who has a grudge against her coworker can make up an entire scenario with one prompt and her colleagues might blindly believe her. Let's not pretend they're the same thing. Gen AI is inevitable. Watermarking is likely futile. But in my opinion it is still very important to discuss how, as a society, we're going to live in a post-truth world now that anybody can, IN SECONDS, not only fabricate a story but also spread it to thousands of people through their social media.
- nomel 4mo agoSimple, don't trust what you see on the internet, which has been a constant since the mid 90's when it was invented.
- xp84 4mo agoWhen that idea was originated, the advice was more like: "Don't trust what you see on the Internet. Trust instead what you read in a reputable daily newspaper, or Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw on the nightly news, or BBC World News." Today, the Internet, especially the part which is not trustable, has nearly finished killing most of the "trustworthy" news sources, by outcompeting them for ad dollars - by being way better at targeting ads (e.g. Meta) and by scientifically perfecting addiction (e.g. TikTok). What remains is mostly controlled by governments and has far from a perfect record of being fact-based and impartial.[1] There are a ton of independent people out there in good faith posting facts on the Internet, but we just agreed that we shouldn't trust what we see on the Internet. So doesn't this become "Don't trust anything"? And doesn't that, in practice, get implemented as "Don't trust anything that challenges what you believe to be true"? This feels like a really, really bad change to our society - and I'd argue it's already completely happened. [1] https://apnews.com/article/bbc-gaza-documentary-hamas-sanction-ofcom-c3d0cbbba9b014e58419e0d63c8af686 https://apnews.com/article/bbc-gaza-documentary-hamas-sancti...
- streetfighter64 4mo agoThe concept of truth? A bit overblown don't you think? Because some guy can make a realistic looking fake videos that destroys the "concept" of truth? How?
- jameson 4mo agoIt's best for privacy not to do this in the first place because: - Watermarks are optional by AI provider so bad actors will circumvent by using another provider - GH project proves watermarks can be removed Given these, trying to ensure "truth" is a futile effort unfortunately, and watermarking only gives companies advantage to violate privacy
- RobotToaster 4mo agoAI watermarks only give the illusion of maintaining the concept of truth. The government and corporations will still have access to un-watermarked models to destroy the truth with.