Many comments suggest this won't be useful technology in that it will be easily circumvented for nefarious purposes. Would you mind commenting on your perception of the potential of this particular implementation of the technology you helped create?
I just watched the embedded video, which actually shows a photographer using a digital camera to digitize and "authenticate" analog slides. The whole thing seems like a bit of a charade, to me.
I found a service selling 35mm slides of digital image files for £3.25 each.
Slightly off topic, but has anyone felt they've improved at identifying "AI" images?
My instagram feed is increasingly filled with "AI models", for some reason I can really easily identify these images whereas earlier on I really struggled a lot. Now I can more easily recogize these images, it actually turns me off using Instagram as I find it annoying / jarring.
A few months back, I'd be looking at the hands etc to try work out if the image was real or not. I'd always fail those "is this person real or not" quizzes where as now, I can smash those things pretty easily and almost always know when an IG post is faked.
What you are looking at might have a lower compute count as the popularity grows and the GPU/User ratio shrinks.
A GPU shortage under popularity growth should result in more obvious AI art over time sans an algorithm breakthrough that reduces compute cost by orders.
Anyone know how resistant this could be to cropping, scaling, or grading? Is this purely for verifying the raw or could this be something that social platforms could verify and tag on posts?
The idea is that full edit history is preserved - not verbatim in the metadata, but as a tag that can be looked up in a database. More info here: https://c2pa.org/
Generally, signing digital files is a great way to have some strong form of authenticity. There's a lot of unsigned content on the internet which makes impersonating people quite easy. We have fake news, fake comments, fake reviews, propaganda departments from intelligence agencies from hostile countries meddling with elections and public affairs, companies and lobby organizations spreading FUD, marketing companies specializing in bending public opinion, etc.
There's a lot of good reason to start insisting of people using digital signatures for everything they produce. Even without considering AI.
People obsess about what AIs can do here. But you might just make the point that at some point it starts rivaling what a determined hostile person could do manually right now. Sure, it adds scale and convenience for those with such intentions; which makes the problem more urgent than it already was. But it was pretty bad before that.
Putin did not use AI a few years ago. He simply just put some teams of writers to work to flood the internet with content intended to bend Elections this way or that way or erode public confidence.
Web of trust has been tried before of course but IMHO it deserves another chance. The current state is not sustainable when we might get AI generated content dwarfing the amount of genuine content very soon.
I do think there's something useful here. It's like having photographers PGP sign all their images, but with an actually workable UX, and with keys (presumably) stored in a secure enclave within the camera body. This is good.
I just think that marketing teams are inevitably going to oversell it. The moment someone posts an obviously fake image to social media, with all checks from this tech giving the green light, it will destroy the public's confidence in it. The actual usefulness of the tech is nuanced, and it will be a struggle to convey it meaningfully (to technical and non-technical audiences alike)
What if what was recorded or photographed, you don't want your identity associated with it due to its contents - e.g. whistleblowing classified government/state documents exposing horrific crimes against humanity? If no digital signature then it's automatically fake?
It doesn't seem to matter at the moment though anyhow, the corrupt establishment so far seems to be a good enough job suppressing what they don't want out and maintaining control.
Meh would prefer untrusted digital world. Would act as a forcing function for us to live in the real world, where being there is the only reliable source.
Attesting documents is an old and important social technology.
Here in the UK, the police have a long tradition of using pocket notebooks to record their observations and activities. It is a professional duty to make a contemporaneous note of anything significant that happens during a shift - attending a crime scene, observing a suspect, taking a statement from a witness. Each notebook has a unique serial number, which is recorded by the officer's supervisor when it is issued to them. Each page of the notebook is numbered sequentially. Each entry in that notebook must be closed with a line, the time and date and the officer's signature.
When a police officer gives evidence in court, the defence will ask to see their pocket notebook as a matter of course. If the evidence they give isn't corroborated by their pocket notebook, a jury or magistrate is entitled to draw their own conclusions about the veracity of the testimony. If an entry is obliterated or a page has been torn out, if the entries are out-of-sequence or don't match with the dispatch logs from the day in question, that's obviously a cause for significant scepticism and may constitute an act of professional misconduct.
A notebook with numbered pages isn't a particularly clever technical innovation, but the practice surrounding it creates a great deal of value. It doesn't infallibly prove that an officer is telling the truth, but it creates a lot of hurdles and pitfalls for a dishonest officer. Likewise, in-camera signing of images doesn't prove that an image is an accurate reflection of reality, but it does make life more difficult for dishonest photojournalists or insurance assessors or forensic investigators. It gives few firm answers, but it does allow us to ask useful questions. If you're presenting an image as evidence, is it signed? Do the timestamp and geotag fit with your testimony regarding the circumstances in which the image was taken? If not, why?
Receiving and trusting information is essential to being human. We don't have to prove everything to ourselves from sensory evidence and first principles because other people can credibly tell us things.
[+] [-] mikewarot|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/f7/e9/46/00ddfea...
[2] https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4f/e3/ed/a46504f...
[+] [-] JieJie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retr0id|2 years ago|reply
(or even, interpose the bus connecting the image sensor to the rest of the camera)
[+] [-] Retr0id|2 years ago|reply
I found a service selling 35mm slides of digital image files for £3.25 each.
[+] [-] vanviegen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChatGTP|2 years ago|reply
My instagram feed is increasingly filled with "AI models", for some reason I can really easily identify these images whereas earlier on I really struggled a lot. Now I can more easily recogize these images, it actually turns me off using Instagram as I find it annoying / jarring.
A few months back, I'd be looking at the hands etc to try work out if the image was real or not. I'd always fail those "is this person real or not" quizzes where as now, I can smash those things pretty easily and almost always know when an IG post is faked.
[+] [-] dukeyukey|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|2 years ago|reply
A GPU shortage under popularity growth should result in more obvious AI art over time sans an algorithm breakthrough that reduces compute cost by orders.
[+] [-] h0l0cube|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retr0id|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iamleppert|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patcon|2 years ago|reply
Starling Lab involves Dan Boneh.
[+] [-] throwawayForMe2|2 years ago|reply
https://leicacamerausa.com/leica-m11-p-in-silver-chrome.html
[+] [-] lemoncookiechip|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Moldoteck|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] waynenilsen|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leereeves|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retr0id|2 years ago|reply
I'm sure they can make it hard, with secure silicon etc., but they'll never make it impossible and that somewhat defeats the purpose.
[+] [-] dist-epoch|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
There's a lot of good reason to start insisting of people using digital signatures for everything they produce. Even without considering AI.
People obsess about what AIs can do here. But you might just make the point that at some point it starts rivaling what a determined hostile person could do manually right now. Sure, it adds scale and convenience for those with such intentions; which makes the problem more urgent than it already was. But it was pretty bad before that.
Putin did not use AI a few years ago. He simply just put some teams of writers to work to flood the internet with content intended to bend Elections this way or that way or erode public confidence.
Web of trust has been tried before of course but IMHO it deserves another chance. The current state is not sustainable when we might get AI generated content dwarfing the amount of genuine content very soon.
[+] [-] Retr0id|2 years ago|reply
I just think that marketing teams are inevitably going to oversell it. The moment someone posts an obviously fake image to social media, with all checks from this tech giving the green light, it will destroy the public's confidence in it. The actual usefulness of the tech is nuanced, and it will be a struggle to convey it meaningfully (to technical and non-technical audiences alike)
[+] [-] loceng|2 years ago|reply
It doesn't seem to matter at the moment though anyhow, the corrupt establishment so far seems to be a good enough job suppressing what they don't want out and maintaining control.
[+] [-] ohlokkru|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdietrich|2 years ago|reply
Here in the UK, the police have a long tradition of using pocket notebooks to record their observations and activities. It is a professional duty to make a contemporaneous note of anything significant that happens during a shift - attending a crime scene, observing a suspect, taking a statement from a witness. Each notebook has a unique serial number, which is recorded by the officer's supervisor when it is issued to them. Each page of the notebook is numbered sequentially. Each entry in that notebook must be closed with a line, the time and date and the officer's signature.
When a police officer gives evidence in court, the defence will ask to see their pocket notebook as a matter of course. If the evidence they give isn't corroborated by their pocket notebook, a jury or magistrate is entitled to draw their own conclusions about the veracity of the testimony. If an entry is obliterated or a page has been torn out, if the entries are out-of-sequence or don't match with the dispatch logs from the day in question, that's obviously a cause for significant scepticism and may constitute an act of professional misconduct.
A notebook with numbered pages isn't a particularly clever technical innovation, but the practice surrounding it creates a great deal of value. It doesn't infallibly prove that an officer is telling the truth, but it creates a lot of hurdles and pitfalls for a dishonest officer. Likewise, in-camera signing of images doesn't prove that an image is an accurate reflection of reality, but it does make life more difficult for dishonest photojournalists or insurance assessors or forensic investigators. It gives few firm answers, but it does allow us to ask useful questions. If you're presenting an image as evidence, is it signed? Do the timestamp and geotag fit with your testimony regarding the circumstances in which the image was taken? If not, why?
[+] [-] ben_w|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DFHippie|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mensetmanusman|2 years ago|reply