131–140 of 718 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have some kind of standardized identifier on them Take this a step further and it'll be a personal identifying watermark (only the company can decode). Home printers already do this to some degree.
yeah, personally identifying undetectable watermarks are kindof a terrifying prospect
The interesting tidbit here is SynthID. While a good first step, it doesn't solve the problem of AI generated content NOT having any kind of watermark. So we can prove that something WITH the ID is AI generated but we can't prove that something without one ISN'T AI generated. Like it would be nice if all photo and video generated by the big players would have some kind of standardized identifier on them - but now you…
Some days it feels like I'm the only hacker left who doesn't want government mandated watermarking in creative tools. Were politicians 20 years ago as overreative they'd have demanded Photoshop leave a trace on anything it edited. The amount of moral panic is off the charts. It's still a computer, and we still shouldn't trust everything we see. The fundamentals haven't changed.
Maybe I'm an obscure case, but I'm just not sure what I'd use an image generation model for. For people that use them (regularly or not), what do you use them for?
Nano Banana is more of an image editing model, which probably has more broad use cases for non-generative applications: interior decorating, architecture, picking wardrobes, etc.
Maybe I'm an obscure case, but I'm just not sure what I'd use an image generation model for. For people that use them (regularly or not), what do you use them for?
Mostly highly specific images in blog posts but I also use it for occasional comics. https://mordenstar.com/portfolio/gorgonzo https://mordenstar.com/portfolio/brawny-tortillas https://mordenstar.com/portfolio/ms-frizzle-lava
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there was a standardized identifier, there would be software dedicated to just removing it. I don't see how it would defeat the cat and mouse game.
I don't think it will be easy to just remove it. It's built into the image and thus won't be the same every time. Plus, any service good at reverse-image search (like Google) can basically apply that to determine whether they generated it. There will always be a way to defeat anything, but I don't see why this won't work for like 90% of cases.
The interesting tidbit here is SynthID. While a good first step, it doesn't solve the problem of AI generated content NOT having any kind of watermark. So we can prove that something WITH the ID is AI generated but we can't prove that something without one ISN'T AI generated. Like it would be nice if all photo and video generated by the big players would have some kind of standardized identifier on them - but now you…
Image verification has never been easy. People have been airbrushed out of and pasted into photos for over a century; AI just makes it easier and more accessible. Expecting a “click to verify” workflow is unreasonable as it has ever been; only media literacy and a bit of legwork can accomplish this task.
Is there an "in joke" to this name that I am too old to get? Or it's just a whimsically random name?
Is there an "in joke" to this name that I am too old to get? Or it's just a whimsically random name?