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.
Probably humanity will regret the technology that strengthens a post truth world.
New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
31–40 of 49 posts
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#32I can't wait to take real pictures of a high-resolution display (or even, interpose the bus connecting the image sensor to the rest of the camera)
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.
OK, so you've digitised an analog slide. Any experienced photographer could spot that instantly because slide film has very different properties to an imaging sensor, but we'll set that aside for a moment.
Your camera generated a C2PA manifest when you created that image. If you include the EXIF metadata in that manifest, your subterfuge is revealed immediately. Even without GPS fields, the lens and camera parameters will tell me that you've taken a photo of a very small object rather than the scene represented in the image. If you don't include that metadata, then I know that you've intentionally concealed it from me. You might have a good reason to conceal that data, but I know that the manifest only "validates" a limited set of claims that do not actually tell me much (if anything) about the image.
C2PA is a tool to establish provenance, nothing more. It doesn't prove that an image is "true" in a philosophical sense, it just adds a layer of trust about the technical processes used to create that image. It doesn't stop anyone from misrepresenting an image, it doesn't stop anyone from circulating staged or AI-generated images on social media, but it does allow legitimate reporters, news agencies and other bodies to audit their information flows and show their workings. That isn't a magic bullet against misinformation, but it's still extremely valuable in lots of circumstances.
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#33Generally, 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 s…
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.
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I _think_ I'm good at identifying AI images, but part of it is you can never be sure.
Yeah, I don’t disagree. But in some sense , when could any photo be trusted ? We’ve had airbrushing, CGI forever now.
Or just weird lighting and "Myspace Angles" (people photographing themselves from an angle above, etc)
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
OK, so you've digitised an analog slide. Any experienced photographer could spot that instantly because slide film has very different properties to an imaging sensor, but we'll set that aside for a moment. Your camera generated a C2PA manifest when you created that image. If you include the EXIF metadata in that manifest, your subterfuge is revealed immediately. Even without GPS fields, the lens and camera parameters…
Yes, the photographer in the video is digitizing an analog slide, as an example use case of this technology. Spotting that it is indeed a digitized analog slide doesn't disprove any claims.
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#36Leica has a camera model out implementing this standard.
https://leicacamerausa.com/leica-m11-p-in-silver-chrome.html
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Eh, Language is a mechanical behavior involving interpretation of sound. Triggering sensorial experience is how other people credibly tell us things. We have to verify via prior sensory experience (past experience) if the person speaking in the present is credible. How do we do that with limited sensory experience of their character? Personal ignorances and biases due to lack of experience? We have to understand how…
People lie about, or exaggerate their memories - often actually believing their own false interpretation, this is human nature.
To have no ability to determine whether a video, or image (or any media) is from a reliable source forever more, seems like a pretty bad place to be in - if this is what you're suggesting?
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I can glean from the video, it's heavily dependent on a central database to hold the edits. If someone alters a video, the original would need to be viewable. Who's storing that, and streaming it? And then who's paying for that? I'm guessing that in the end this will be a paid service for journalistic organizations who buy in.
>If someone alters a video, the original would need to be viewable. What exactly do you mean by "need"? This system doesn't stop anyone from distributing edited or staged or otherwise bogus media, because that was never the intention. It does allow someone to demonstrate - with a fairly high level of trustworthiness - that the media they're delivering is raw, unedited footage taken with a particular camera at a parti…
By alter, I mean legitimately within the C2PA framework. It’s a matter of cost and control, and who’s arbitrating that
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#39Sorry for the dumb question, but what is stopping anyone from taking a picture of an AI generated image and passing it up as the "real deal"?
Re: New Tech from Camera Makers Tries to Prove Photos Are Not AI Fakes
#40Sorry for the dumb question, but what is stopping anyone from taking a picture of an AI generated image and passing it up as the "real deal"?
Noise patterns from the camera will be off compared to what is in the image (I think)