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

Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 282 posts

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#141

Post by goatlover »

egeozcan wrote: post #139
digitaltrees wrote: post #124

Why? Don’t do this. Society is built on an implicit assumption of trust. You will erode the foundation that enables any success you might have in the short term.

IMHO you cannot base your trust on something that is so easy to work around. Trust should be between people, not a person and some data. So showing how easy to generate "false" data, this makes it more obvious for people focus on other people. Trusting people makes life much easier in my experience, while focusing on data, again in my experience, is a game of cat and mouse.

The Kentucky primary had $1.7 million spent on deepfake political ads which were seen 49 million times. Don't know how much it effected the result, but it's not a good sign of where things are headed.

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#142

Post by steve1977 »

I think AI watermarks are kind of a lost cause anyway.

I'd be more interested in some kind of trusted Non-AI watermark.

This is something that could get integrated into cameras for example. However, considering how much AI-processing we already have in "normal" photos, it will be difficult to decide where to draw the line.

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#143

Post by goatlover »

nomel wrote: post #41
tredre3 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stalin had all the resources imaginables at his disposal. Now Nancy, a tech-phobic waitress who has a grudge against her coworker can make up an entire scenario with one prompt and her colleagues might blindly believe her. Let's not pretend they're the same thing. Gen AI is inevitable. Watermarking is likely futile. But in my opinion it is still very important to discuss how, as a society, we're going to live in a po…

Simple, don't trust what you see on the internet, which has been a constant since the mid 90's when it was invented.

Not simple because plenty of people do. It's not what you do per say, it's how it effects society.

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#144

Post by basch »

digitaltrees wrote: post #124

Why? Don’t do this. Society is built on an implicit assumption of trust. You will erode the foundation that enables any success you might have in the short term.

The distortion is shockingly visible in images. Especially with any amount of generational iteration https://streamable.com/9x3s4r

That said, this tool is incredibly lossy, garbling text, completely changing shapes. It also fails to remove the new gemini spark / placement that moved since yesterday.

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#145

Post by goatlover »

15155 wrote: post #42
croes wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good example why fake images are bad. Do you want to make it easier for the next Stalin?

The genie has been out of the bottle for 100 years, it's delusional to think that some voluntary watermark is going to stop that. In reality, all images will cease to be trustworthy and there's nothing that can be done about this.

Why are humans powerless to do anything about this? Aren't we making the technology? It's kind of a big problem for the future of the justice system and politics.

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#146

Post by goatlover »

baby_souffle wrote: post #81
streetfighter64 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's probably a technical solution, such as the camera manufacturer cryptographically signing a GPS location and timestamp together with the pixels. Like all DRM it will probably be broken though, and more importantly, would anyone (even e.g. a newspaper editor) care enough to verify the signature?

Spoofing GPS timing signals isn't as hard as it used to be. If you know what you're looking for on AliExpress you can get all the equipment you need

How about a quantum digital signature?

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#147

Post by digitaltrees »

vasco wrote: post #134
digitaltrees wrote: post #124

Why? Don’t do this. Society is built on an implicit assumption of trust. You will erode the foundation that enables any success you might have in the short term.

How is a hidden watermark that only police and providers can read better than a hidden watermark that the people can also read if they go out of their way to setup some project like this? Also your argument makes zero sense because bad guys will do this anyway. At least there's also an open source project for normal people, and it's interesting from a stenography standpoint.

Watermarks exists to create a chain of custody or attribution that can be used to establish culpability. Just like the government requires printer companies to add a dot matrix watermark to printed pages to prevent currency forgery.

Making untraceable assets means parties can’t be held liable for harms.

Just because a bad actor might poison a toddler doesn’t mean you should sell them the arsenic.

Just because the effects of arsenic on the neurons of a brain are interesting means you should feed them to a toddler and watch the effects unfold.

I support the legal freedom to pursue any idea, but we should also mentor our colleagues about the consequences of our projects and avoid unnecessary harm.

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#148

Post by vasco »

digitaltrees wrote: post #147
vasco wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is a hidden watermark that only police and providers can read better than a hidden watermark that the people can also read if they go out of their way to setup some project like this? Also your argument makes zero sense because bad guys will do this anyway. At least there's also an open source project for normal people, and it's interesting from a stenography standpoint.

Watermarks exists to create a chain of custody or attribution that can be used to establish culpability. Just like the government requires printer companies to add a dot matrix watermark to printed pages to prevent currency forgery. Making untraceable assets means parties can’t be held liable for harms. Just because a bad actor might poison a toddler doesn’t mean you should sell them the arsenic. Just because the eff…

What is it with people that take your position that they always need to bring children to the discussion? Where's the watermark in an IKEA knife?

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#149

Post by InsideOutSanta »

egeozcan wrote: post #139
digitaltrees wrote: post #124

Why? Don’t do this. Society is built on an implicit assumption of trust. You will erode the foundation that enables any success you might have in the short term.

IMHO you cannot base your trust on something that is so easy to work around. Trust should be between people, not a person and some data. So showing how easy to generate "false" data, this makes it more obvious for people focus on other people. Trusting people makes life much easier in my experience, while focusing on data, again in my experience, is a game of cat and mouse.

> Trusting people makes life much easier in my experience

Sure, but how do you apply that to a society at large where powerful people are interested in making everybody distrust all reliable sources of information?

AI watermarks are no panacea, but at least they are a clear signal of what not to trust.

Re: Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images

#150

Post by cyberax »

tempest_ wrote: post #103
fc417fc802 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time you're building (or buying) the necessary highly esoteric and expensive ultracentrifuge setup I think you would be well outside the realm of "hobbyist" unless someone insists on the most unreasonably pedantic definition for the term. Unless we're only considering final assembly. Just gotta get that weapons grade fissile material supplier lined up. That might or might not qualify as rich hobbyist territory…

You don't have to use the ultracentrifuge, though I don't suppose the power plant you would need for a diffusion plant would be much more attainable.

In theory, there's also direct laser-based isotope separation. It's a technology that is being actively suppressed, and that's one case where I very much in favor of that.
Post reply on HN