3 ms·

And I'm not sure it's even useful to solve. The presence/absence of a digital signature will never be the deciding factor in whether people accept/reject an ima

And I'm not sure it's even useful to solve. The presence/absence of a digital signature will never be the deciding factor in whether people accept/reject an image as authentic.

timcobb 1mo ago
Yeah this is what I don't get why are people even spending time on this.
- EA-3167 1mo ago
  A desperate attempt to preempt regulation.
  - akersten 1mo ago
    A desperate attempt to establish their version of regulatory capture and not have to pay licensing fees to the other guy
  - timcobb 1mo ago
    This is a clear explanation, thank you
- HWR_14 1mo ago
  Is this picture real or AI is a real problem it is worth money to solve.
  - SoftTalker 1mo ago
    Why? An image should never be proof of anything, by itself.
    - HWR_14 1mo ago
      What should be sufficient proof for you that AI wont fake trivially?
  - duskwuff 1mo ago
    What I'm getting at is that metadata that claims that a photo is "real" won't necessarily convince people that it is, and the lack of that metadata doesn't mean anything at all. About the only real use I've seen for C2PA is to confirm that an image bearing that metadata is AI-generated - and that marker is easily lost through editing or retransmission.
    - timcobb 1mo ago
      Yeah we live in the era of alternative facts and this is just more, at best, "fact checking"
    - HWR_14 1mo ago
      I'm not saying it's an easy problem or that this is the right solution. I'm saying it's a valuable problem and so they are trying this solution.
  - silon42 1mo ago
    And it's very real problem to workaround (aka, hack the device into faking the signature).
  - timcobb 1mo ago
    It is (not sure I agree, but I can see how one would think this) but you're not going to solve it like this
rackp 1mo ago
[dead]