201–210 of 282 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stalin had no issues photoshopping images almost 100 years ago.
A good example why fake images are bad. Do you want to make it easier for the next Stalin?
We already have the problem of people blindly trusting shit they read on the Internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No really, why would I _need_ to remove a watermark for _legitimate_ purposes? When removing the watermark is easy, a very legitimate purpose of making the code to do it publicly available is to make a public demonstration that it's easy to do. As for content use cases, suppose someone is using AI to modify their appearance because they're being unjustly targeted by an oppressive government. That government natural…
> suppose someone is using AI to modify their appearance because they're being unjustly targeted by an oppressive government Then use a mask like everyone else. digital mask, one that obscures. which is my main point, no, there isn't a legitimate need. realtime avatars don't generally have invisible watermarks, also they are running from your machine, otherwise you've got a (normally credit card) trail to your front…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. Knowing an image for sure is fake has value, even if you can’t guarantee the reverse is true.
What stops someone from adding a watermark to an actually photographed (carefully framed?) picture to discredit it? There is no certainty either way, just suggestions from someone else about what the truth might be.
If you want to discredit an imagine, upload a slightly ai-edited copy of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn’t win because of DRM. They won because of the regulations that grant a monopoly for a specific term in the form of a copyright. Society has recognized that incentivizing creative acts requires a temporary grant of monopoly to ensure the necessary scarcity to make money and recover the costs of creation. The real problem is Disney keeps expanding that time period so things never enter the public domain
This is again conflating at least two things and this is so prevalent in this context. Let us not conflate how annoying DRM:s are to us users that buy the things, with pirates thinking they somehow have a right to use any software without paying fairly for it. I would even go as far as to say that you pirates are the reason I have to have a DRM in the shit I bought and paid for.
I think this is largely an incorrect take. DRM is anti consumer, not anti piracy. In fact, it has done very little to deter actual piracy (and remember it only takes ONE person to break the DRM), while affecting some casual pirates and all legitimate users. In the process, they got rid of reselling stuff you own.
It's anticonsumer, not antipiracy, never forget that. It means something like this would have happened regardless of pirates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>due to the arms race that large corporate machines will win Much like how the entirety of Hollywood, book publishers, academic publishers, and game developers have won against piracy despite being some of the largest corps on earth and dedicating untold billions to the issue over the past 30 years?
They won the long game. Everything is rented and DRM now. Very little of what most people buy digitally is truly owned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is again conflating at least two things and this is so prevalent in this context. Let us not conflate how annoying DRM:s are to us users that buy the things, with pirates thinking they somehow have a right to use any software without paying fairly for it. I would even go as far as to say that you pirates are the reason I have to have a DRM in the shit I bought and paid for.
Piracy is as easy now as it was pre-DRM. DRM is the digital equivalent to security screws on electronics, in that they’re a mechanism for lawyers to argue their client made an attempt despite being easily bypassed with a trivial amount of effort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the umpteenth time, scale and ease of access and propagation matters. A knife and a handgun aren’t comparable to a machine gun and a bomb. When you have equal access to all of those, the damage you can enact is exponentiated. You could lie with text before, but it took effort and time and skill to do it convincingly. You could also lie with images but they took even more time and effort and skill, greatly limitin…
[flagged]
It can be both things.
I worry about tracking and the post-truth world of everything fake and AI slop infiltrating everything. And like the person you're arguing with is saying, just because slop/fakery was possible before doesn't mean the widespread scale that AI and the internet have unlocked is of no concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already possible to lie with text. Pixels are pixels. If we can't blindly believe pixels to show the truth, we will be simply back to the pre-photography era which managed to have a concept of truth regardless.
When could you ever trust pixels?
The photo could be staged (e.g. Cottingley Fairies), it could be altered physically (like cutting or painting over, e.g. Stalin), it could be cropped intentionally to tell a different story (plenty of examples), and more recently it could be photoshopped, etc. All of these were possible, though harder than it is now, but let's not pretend we didn't "trust pixels". We all did, just as we trusted newspaper photographs. Now that era must come to a firm end, and I believe it's a tragedy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won the long game. Everything is rented and DRM now. Very little of what most people buy digitally is truly owned.
did they? Is piracy now impossible?
They've got some sort of hypervisor bypass for basically all Denuvo games.