Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award

eldagsen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 116 posts

Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award

#11

Post by ntkachov »

galleywest200 wrote: post #4

My initial reaction was "great, so this is a thing now" but then I opened the article: > "I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions (sic) are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not." I withdraw my heavy sigh. --- This did get me thinking though -- could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera? This could then be carried over from t…

You don't even have to carry it over, just require the original signed file in a competition. Though whenever you look at security you always have to consider what happens when it gets cracked.

Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award

#14

Post by azubinski »

"AI images and photography should not compete with eachother in an award like this. They are different entities. AI is not photography. Therefore I will not accept the award"

That is, the author of this dirty trick knew this very well from the very beginning, but nevertheless he submitted to the competition not a real shot (which is a unique stopped flat moment of reality), but a synthetic picture of which he is not the author.

And after all this, the author of this trick gracefully declined the award.

Someday such a logic of such bad fools will destroy this world.

Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award

#15

Post by hammyhavoc »

FeistySkink wrote: post #9
galleywest200 wrote: post #4

My initial reaction was "great, so this is a thing now" but then I opened the article: > "I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions (sic) are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not." I withdraw my heavy sigh. --- This did get me thinking though -- could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera? This could then be carried over from t…

Where do you draw the line between heavy editing and fully AI-generated? Some edits have little in common with the source, so at which point is the source not relevant anymore? What if you feed an original photo through some AI-enhanced tool like Topaz?

What if you use in-camera fx like lenses, filters, lighting etc? How puritanical is what we consider photography?

Is it like the puritans of guitar rejecting digital then later embracing profilers and modellers?

Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award

#17

Post by capableweb »

jncraton wrote: post #7
galleywest200 wrote: post #4

My initial reaction was "great, so this is a thing now" but then I opened the article: > "I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions (sic) are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not." I withdraw my heavy sigh. --- This did get me thinking though -- could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera? This could then be carried over from t…

> could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera They could, and some already do, but this doesn't fully solve the problem. You'd still be left with the analog loophole[1]. A sufficiently advanced attacker could feed a generated image directly to the camera sensor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

You just have to dive deeper. You need two cameras that have cryptographic signatures automatically attached.

In order to submit picture 1, you need to have picture 2 that was taken at the exact same time (and time is in the signature too) by a different camera, of picture 1 being taken, as a verification picture.

Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award

#18

Post by Kuinox »

jncraton wrote: post #7
galleywest200 wrote: post #4

My initial reaction was "great, so this is a thing now" but then I opened the article: > "I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions (sic) are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not." I withdraw my heavy sigh. --- This did get me thinking though -- could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera? This could then be carried over from t…

> could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera They could, and some already do, but this doesn't fully solve the problem. You'd still be left with the analog loophole[1]. A sufficiently advanced attacker could feed a generated image directly to the camera sensor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

Or... Extract the keys from the camera.

Re: AI-generated image selected for a Sony World Photography Award

#19

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

jncraton wrote: post #7
galleywest200 wrote: post #4

My initial reaction was "great, so this is a thing now" but then I opened the article: > "I applied as a cheeky monkey, to find out, if the comeptitions (sic) are prepared for AI images to enter. They are not." I withdraw my heavy sigh. --- This did get me thinking though -- could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera? This could then be carried over from t…

> could camera manufacturers add a new tag to the EXIF data that is cryptographically signed by the camera They could, and some already do, but this doesn't fully solve the problem. You'd still be left with the analog loophole[1]. A sufficiently advanced attacker could feed a generated image directly to the camera sensor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

Also, I think every one of these has been broken. There have been instances of images being entirely replaced by historical images, without breaking the signature.

http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Russians-on-the-m...

Post reply on HN