4 ms·

It depends on filed. As documentary photographer it motivates me even more to capture authentic images of life around me. I don't care about remixing, because t

• chrisjj 2mo ago
  And how is any future viewer going to tell your images from "AI" fakes?
  • lemiffe 2mo ago
    Disclosure
  • jfyi 2mo ago
    With photos, I could see a cryptographic solution. Of course it would still need some kind of centralized trust, but it's doable if people cared enough. It could be applied by cameras themselves.
    • chrisjj 2mo ago
      > It could be applied by cameras themselves. And equally faked by bots.
      • hamdingers 2mo ago
        If it were generally possible to forge cryptographic signatures we'd have bigger things to worry about than AI generated photos.
        • chrisjj 2mo ago
          I agree, but this doesn't require a general capability. The suggestion is a camera could apply the signature. Cameras could be hacked.
          • hamdingers 2mo ago
            A camera could be hacked with unrestricted physical access, but that doesn't make the suggestion unsound, it only requires there be a process for revoking trust in specific signing keys. This is already part of C2PA. And the value of the signature is also going to vary by who claims it. Improbable photos signed by a random camera body sold to an anonymous consumer should be treated with more suspicion than one a newswire agency publicly claims, for instance.
          • jfyi 2mo ago
            A camera should not need to be hacked. What do you expect to accomplish by hacking the camera? We should be able to move certificates on and off it because they would most likely expire anyway. So, you can get the keys from the camera, what then? You use openssl to sign an image that shouldn't be signed... what then? You do this enough and get caught, you lose your cert and can never pass the kyc to get another one. Then every picture you used it for in the past would start showing a big red exclamation point with a note, "This is a scumbag user known for forging images".
            • chrisjj 2mo ago
              > You use openssl to sign an image that shouldn't be signed... what then? You do whatever you want with your provably genuine fake image. > You do this enough and get caught How are you going to get caught? By the signature owner repudiating some of the images "he" signed? I can see that working out for him.
              • jfyi 2mo ago
                Same way it works for tls and code signing. Public reports bad actors to the signing authority. They and/or independent firms investigate. You self report theft. It's not like we are inventing pki from scratch here and wondering what an implementation would look like. We have decades of use to look at. Besides wasn't your argument "hacking" a minute ago? So you concede that then? You seem to have moved on.
                • 2mo ago
    • inigyou 2mo ago
      So take a photo of a screen showing an AI image.
      • jfyi 2mo ago
        The premise is not that it couldn't be faked. It would be more practical to remove the key from the hardware and just use it to sign images if you wanted to do that. The idea is that a centralized source of trust would revoke certificates belonging to bad actors or those that were stolen.
        • inigyou 2mo ago
          Cool. Every time I want to pass off AI images I'll buy a new Nikon camera. Always a Nikon until their cert is revoked. I'll short their stock before that.
          • jfyi 2mo ago
            Why do you assume the cert would be tied to the camera?
    • eloisius 2mo ago
      This is already a thing. Leica cryptographically signs images. Useful for establishing trust for photojournalists I guess. I’m not sure how deep the chain goes. Do they have hardware attention down to the sensor? You could take a picture of a screen, but that would likely have some other tell-tales. Especially if Leica took another step like putting a depth sensor in the package and added its data to the signature.
  • mikae1 2mo ago
    Because the photographer builds trust, over years, by not manipulating their images using AI. All trust is erased if anyone spots the manipulation.
    • chrisjj 2mo ago
      Unfortunately that solution fails where "AI" manipulation is not detectable by viewers.
      • t0bia_s 2mo ago
        Many famous images was edited. It's part of process. However we talk about generative manipulation that change or generate new content.
      • mikae1 2mo ago
        My point was that the risk of erasing all the trust built keeps a wise photographer from missteps.
  • t0bia_s 2mo ago
    By trust. If you pay attention enough, you'll discover authenticity and "handwriting" well.
    • chrisjj 2mo ago
      No amount of trust or attention can detect a good fake.
  • deleted 2mo ago
    [deleted]