Ok i get that eventually someone was gonna do this but why would we want to purposely remove one of the only ways of detecting if an image is ai generated or not...?

▲

akersten an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Fundamentally it's a fuzzy signal and people shouldn't rely on it. The general public does not understand Boolean logic (oh, so the SynthID is not there, therefore this image is real). The sooner AI watermarking faces its deserved farcical demise the better.

Also something about how AI is not special and we haven't added or needed invisible watermarks for other ways media can be manipulated deceptively since time immemorial, but that's less of a practical argument and more of a philosophical one.

▲

StarlaAtNight 25 minutes ago | parent [-]

I’m not very well read on the topic and you seen to take a strong “con” stance. Curious to hear why you think it deserves such a demise

	▲	love2read 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		People think that just because they have a way to prove that an image is AI, their worries of misinformation are solved. Better to acknowledge that wherever you look people will be trying to deceive you even if their content won't have as obvious an indicator as SynthID.

▲

lokar 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It was always going to be available to some people, but not everyone would know or believe that. Now they will.

	▲	subscribed an hour ago \| parent [-]
		More likely than not it would be used to deanonymise the author. So it's a "no" by default.

▲

raincole 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Uh... you can do this pretty easily since day 1. Just use Stable Diffusion with a low denoising strength. This repo presents an even less destructive way[0], but it has always been very easy to hide that an image is generated by Nano Banana.

[0]: if it does what it claims to do. I didn't verify. Given how much AI writing in the README my hunch is that this doesn't work better than simple denoising.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]