5 ms·
It also doesn't prevent you from staging an image or anything that's existed since photography was invented. But that's not the problem they're trying to solve.
by osy 11d ago
It also doesn't prevent you from staging an image or anything that's existed since photography was invented. But that's not the problem they're trying to solve.
> Today, powerful, widely available AI tools allow users to easily generate or alter photorealistic images to a degree that was difficult to imagine just a few years ago.
Photoshop has existed for decades and so has fake images. This is a low friction way to attest "this image came from an iPhone sensor and Apple approved it". It will still take the usual image forensics to determine if the scene it depicts is legitimate.
- BugsJustFindMe 11d ago> "But that's not the problem they're trying to solve." It is the problem that they say they're trying to solve, though. They specifically say "where the essential role of a photograph is to prove that something actually happened". It fails the reasonable person test to say that the "something" in that phrase refers to the act of taking the photo itself. Likewise in "distinguish between photographs that depict real events and...".
- spiderice 11d agoThis is so stupid. This makes it like, a thousand times harder to fake a photo than it would otherwise be. You pedants imagining a way to fake it doesn't change that.
- BugsJustFindMe 11d ago> This makes it like, a thousand times harder to fake a photo than it would otherwise be. The problem with this thinking is twofold: 1) Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Despite their initial language about discerning real events, we see no details here about what scene information is used. 2) It increases the potential value of a forgery because now your forgery is attested by Apple. So it either makes it easier to defraud people or more worthwhile to put in the effort to defraud people or both. None of those outcomes are great.
- porkshoe 11d agoYou worry that a technology that you have never used nor evaluated might not work in practice... Therefore because of your worry (which is based on remarkably little information), it's a bad technology? Come the fuck on. That's beyond luddite bullshit.
- BugsJustFindMe 11d agoIs this you? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49685271 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49685271
- otterley 11d ago> because of your worry (which is based on remarkably little information) You must be new around here. ;-)
- latexr 11d ago> Whether it actually meaningfully increases the difficulty of a forgery remains to be seen. Then maybe let’s save those criticisms until this is in the hands of knowledgeable people who can actually test? I mean, I’m no fan of the direction Apple has gone under Tim Cook, but all else being equal I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt that they may have thought this through over the time it took to build more than a random person speculating on HN who just read a blog post for the first time. > (…) we see no details here about what scene information is used. And you assume that everything in a post is the sum total of how it works? > It increases the potential value of a forgery By that token, should we also not be adding forgery deterrents to ID cards and bills? After all, if you can fake the preventive measures, “it increases the potential value of a forgery”.
- brookst 11d agoSo, in your view, photography has been fatally flawed since the late 1800’s, and mere mitigation of AI image gen are insufficient if they don’t also solve actors impersonating real people?
- BugsJustFindMe 11d ago> So, in your view, photography has been fatally flawed since the late 1800’s Used in a capacity as evidence? Uh, yes? Duh? Do you seriously believe otherwise? Anyway, that scenario is made worse not better by Apple promising captured veracity.
- reader9274 11d agoYes, it is proving something actually happened, that is your monitor screen showing something you photographed.
- BugsJustFindMe 11d agoLol.
- bawolff 11d agoNo security control is perfect. The point is to increase costs to the point its unfeasible. After all, if money is no object, you could just bribe every single apple employee involved in the project.
- Gigachad 11d agoThis has been possible since the beginning of photography and yet I can’t think of a single scenario where people have been tricked by a staged photo. Yet every day hundreds of millions of people are being fooled by AI generated photos.
- zimpenfish 10d ago> I can’t think of a single scenario where people have been tricked by a staged photo Let me introduce you to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and the Cottingley Fairies[0]. "Doyle was enthusiastic about the photographs, and interpreted them as clear and visible evidence of supernatural phenomena. [...] the photographs were faked, using cardboard cutouts of fairies copied from a popular children's book of the time" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottingley_Fairies
- pndy 11d ago> This is a low friction way to attest "this image came from an iPhone sensor and Apple approved it". Which surely will be useful in ID verification on the Internet; Android devices most likely will follow with same or similar solution