| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 6 hours ago |
| This is just performative nonsense. As someone that creates things with tools with different media I would just hard avoid this tool that adds... arbitrary metadata not of my choosing. Should I seriously make a texture for a videogame with this weird DRM glorp in it? How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? |
|
| ▲ | ericpruitt 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not useful. I've already seen posts online that were able to be proven as falsified because someone ran the images through Google for SynthID checks. > How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? For one, it's not developed by Google or OpenAI. The barrier to entry to making realistic but deceptive images with Photoshop is far higher than with AI, and there are already techniques that can, imperfectly, be used to detect the use of traditional image editing. |
| |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So 999 people that are just making an image need to be DRM'ed so that you might catch the 1 person making "realistic but deceptive" images... like this is some kind of special case of ... internet images. | | |
| ▲ | space_fountain 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This isn't DRM right? This is metadata attached to the image that makes it clear it was synthetically generated. The public has a huge incentive to know when images are AI generated and the harm to legitimate users seems pretty small: aka someone might complain online that you use AI | | |
| ▲ | raron 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Not yet, but it is easy to imagine many ways it would be used for DRM. | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | billions? of "fake" images not generated by ai but just photoshopped and ... not really harmful. There is no case that any of its particularly harmful outside of things like CSAM which is illegal. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nathancahill 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean I see a lot of images online where people forget or don't care enough to remove/crop the Gemini watermark. | |
| ▲ | bsder 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guarantee this works poorly, at best. If this actually works solidly, Google is in deep, deep, deep shit. It would mean that I can put a mark on my non-AI videos and demand that Google not allow upload of my identifiably copyrighted content. This would completely obliterate YouTube. | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent [-] | | No, it wouldn't. ContentID is already used by Google for that exact purpose. They appear to be fully in favor of enforcing IP law provided the owning party raises a complaint. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Jtarii 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? I'm sure you can think of a couple things that differentiate gen AI from photoshop, I believe in you. |
| |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | The main difference is we are in the middle of a moral panic and people have lost perspective. Its a tool with different modalties and affordances. | | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | When I saw the article I was initially skeptical. I do look down on OpenAI, Google, and other such companies. But on second thought it is not a bad idea to be able to have a quick tool to identify an image as AI generated. And after reading your reaction to it, I am sure now that the watermark is for the best. | | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you are in the"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" school of privacy rights? Only criminals and bad actors want private defaults? The burden of proof is proving there is some harm or problem that needs solving and noone has managed that in this thread or generally. | | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > So you are in the"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" school of privacy rights? No, but you are in the school that teaches that false equivalence is valid rationale. > Only criminals and bad actors want private defaults As I was saying. > The burden of proof is proving there is some harm or problem that needs solving and noone has managed that in this thread or generally. "Burden of proof" is a concept borrowed from legal practice where the accuser has to offer proof that the accused commited a crime. No crime is being implied here. Watermarking is actually a useful feature so that people can easily identify images as AI generated. | |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not sure what's to hide here. The caveat depends on what data is encoded into the watermark. If it's as simple as the date generated and the system that generated it so that it is easily identifiable as AI generated, I'm fine with it. Hell, I'd even say it'd be cool to embed all of the prompts used to generate the image. If it's also including the name of the user or account ID, then we start getting into gray areas. Since I'm not really on the AI hype train, I'm not all that opposed to that info either. I'll never use it so it won't affect me mindset kicks in on this one, but I'd be okay either way for/against embedding user identifiable info. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | janalsncm 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Strictly speaking, DRM = digital rights management, which is related to intellectual property. SynthID would only be DRM if Google/OpenAI were claiming IP rights over their images. I don’t even know if that’s legal though. |
| |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | What value does "strictly speaking" bring to the discussion? So that you don't have to address any of the issues? | | |
| ▲ | janalsncm 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Words matter? DRM means digital rights management, not simply any kind of metadata a person doesn’t like. | | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes... they do matter, perhaps using care in your understanding before attempting to nitpick? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Wate... | | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps bother to read what you linked before being snarky? > They are not complete DRM mechanisms in their own right, but are used as part of a system for copyright enforcement ... Because watermarks in and of themselves are not, in fact, DRM. Even if I agree that their mass adoption by BigTech is a really bad sign for personal privacy and (eventually) freedom. | | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes I did read it years ago and again today? If you read my original point you'd see I said "weird DRM glorp" which you and other have tried, and failed to only closely parse "DRM" so that you could nitpick poorly. It is integral and part of DRM systems and certainly "weird DRM glorp" for an actual close reader. DRM is not just "I cant watch X movie because DRM" even if that is the statistically prevalent understanding of DRM. Its a suite of technologies of which watermarking is one of. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Because DRM is primarily used to ensure the content is not shared in a way the owner does not allow. That is not what SynthID is doing. All it does is allow people to know it is a generated image specifically for when it starts to be widely shared on the internet. So strictly speaking brings a lot to the discussion when you actually think about it. Stating that DRM != SynthID is addressing issues where people seem to think that DRM == SynthID. Those people are wrong, and strictly speaking need to be corrected. | | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are making a category error -- "this image made by OpenAI" is a drm assertion You wont be able to assert copyright of the picture that you added an OpenAI red bowtie to, thats a DRM issue. |
| |
| ▲ | drdeca 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Accuracy is valuable. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | runarberg 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For the record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots |
|
| ▲ | Barbing 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? How does today’s maximum theoretical disinformation output per minute compare to 2021 Photoshop? |
| |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Its 2026... people are deliberately choosing to live in their own realities with no care about objective facts or moral choices. So weird images are a big problem? No they don't matter at all. | | |
| ▲ | Barbing 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Political deepfakes on the mind here more than weird stuff. | | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters, ok? It's, like, incredible." — Donald Trump So what does a deepfake matter? | | |
| ▲ | Barbing 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Are there other politicians? Do disgruntled employees have bosses? Ex partners? A national news story in the US tonight, Lyft driver caught faking photos of his messy car. Not the most intelligent fraudster as he left the Gemini logo on the corner of the image. Providing these four examples in good faith :) also generally I _dislike_ DRM | | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha an hour ago | parent [-] | | Against MILLLIONS of legitimate uses which you don't seem to care to protect? You should also think about whether, suddenly, courts can now trust images they see because this technology exists? I think thats not even basically plausible. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If they don't matter, neither does a watermark. | | |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | and you need the watermark to tell you the fish with the mustache is fake... What image is going to change your worldview so radically that the drm saves you? edit - to be clear you are watermarking 100,000 fishes with mustaches because of your concern over 1 image that "matters" (and you don't even have an image that matters in mind) | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | doctorpangloss 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| You: "performative nonsense! Arbitrary metadata not of my choosing!" Also you: well, games go through some kind of distribution, which has plenty of telemetry and metadata. Whether it is App Store with notarization, or Steam or Itch who collect analytics and know a lot about you, or your ISP if you self host your eclectic WebGL game from home. Posting on an iPhone or Android phone, to hacker News which has your email address, on your cell network which has IPv6 globally unique addresses... "But my choosing!" You'll say. It is extremely performative of you to say, "everything that would make me 200% wrong isn't valid." I don't know. I really hate these vibes-driven reactions to (checks notes) content attribution. Every accusation is a confession in this frame of mind. How do you not see that? |
| |
| ▲ | WhatIsDukkha 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You are asserting that the existence of metadata in other venues to be proof that this form of watermarking metadata is just fine with you and should be for everyone else because... nope don't see any reason listed here. I have an IP address so therefore this is all fine? "Every accusation is a confession" also seems like an insinuation that I have something to hide but you have "nothing to hide, nothing to fear"ie the very generic privacy right fallacy. As for "vibes driven"... this whole technical "fix" is a result of the reactionary "vibe" of the ai moral panic, your "notes" don't seem to be providing any perspective there? |
|
