11–20 of 92 posts
Isn't literally every deepfake detection technique just an oracle that you can use to train a better deepfake creator?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At some point in the future, AI will make better humans than naturally occurring humans.
The built in "touch up my appearance" feature in my phone, various video chat software etc. means that future is already here [1]. [1] https://mothership.sg/2021/03/japanese-biker-actually-man/
> An image owner can modify their image in subtle ways which are not themselves very visible, but will sabotage any attempt to inpaint it by adding visible information determined in advance by the markpainter. Hmm... so if I ask it to add an apple to the scene it just looks for an apple and says "yep, found an apple". That is not an algorithm to detect fakes, it is an algorithm to detect predetermined edits. Steganog…
I fail to see how this can actually combat against someone with the patience to manually paste out copyright marks using something like a clone brush, or even a normal brush ?
If someone wants to steal your work, they will. There's no sure-fire way to stop them.
> An image owner can modify their image in subtle ways which are not themselves very visible, but will sabotage any attempt to inpaint it by adding visible information determined in advance by the markpainter. Hmm... so if I ask it to add an apple to the scene it just looks for an apple and says "yep, found an apple". That is not an algorithm to detect fakes, it is an algorithm to detect predetermined edits. Steganog…
no i think that sentence means you can still use photoshop manually to laboriously edit stuff… but the super convenient AI editing will fail, meaning 99,9% of the population won‘t be able to create deepfakes
Watermarking can be used to find portions of the photo that have been tampered with.
It is actually pretty simple. And using AI for this is pretty stupid in my opinion.
You just disperse a little bit of additional signal in the photo, maybe divide it into lots of blocks (they don't need to be rectangles and they can overlap). Think of it as every small piece of the photo having its own signature embedded.
If you don't know how the signature was embedded or what key was used for it, you are going to disturb the signature and your editing attempt will be foiled. Not only that, but you will be able to tell which parts of the picture were touched and how so you can tell whether the picture was just cropped, brightness changed, or something else happened to it.
As you see, no need for AI...
You'd need to know all the models that one might use to tamper with a picture and modify the image in such a way that it screws them all.
And the first thing that will happen is that people are going to train their models with these new 'tamper-protected' images...
> An image owner can modify their image in subtle ways which are not themselves very visible, but will sabotage any attempt to inpaint it by adding visible information determined in advance by the markpainter. Hmm... so if I ask it to add an apple to the scene it just looks for an apple and says "yep, found an apple". That is not an algorithm to detect fakes, it is an algorithm to detect predetermined edits. Steganog…
no i think that sentence means you can still use photoshop manually to laboriously edit stuff… but the super convenient AI editing will fail, meaning 99,9% of the population won‘t be able to create deepfakes
> ...a photo agency that makes stock photos available on its website with copyright watermarks can markpaint them in such a way that anyone using common editing software to remove a watermark will fail; the copyright mark will be markpainted right back. So watermarks can be made a lot more robust. I fail to see how this can actually combat against someone with the patience to manually paste out copyright marks using…
Anything that can help us differentiate authentic images from manipulated ones, especially when it comes to news, is imo a welcome addition in the arsenal of societies attached to the concept of verifiable facts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no i think that sentence means you can still use photoshop manually to laboriously edit stuff… but the super convenient AI editing will fail, meaning 99,9% of the population won‘t be able to create deepfakes
The remaining 0.1 % happen to be the ones that matter. It helps no-one to eliminate all but state actors from creating deep fakes.
Actually, it is probably even worse than having deepfakes proliferated. In this case people would expect the photos could have been manipulated. On the other hand if only handful of players can do this it can be used with much more impact.