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.

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.

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.

	▲	dylan604 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.