Check if a file was made with Claude • Hacker News Board

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#141

Post by LtWorf » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 1:24 PM UTC

falsepolymath wrote: post #139

LtWorf wrote: post #94

Is this a trick to get more data to train on?

How would this get more data though? It's more so about being compliant with the EU's new AI laws (which I guess could get them more data since more users)

> How would this get more data though?

It works by uploading files to them?

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#142

Post by JacobKfromIRC » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 2:25 PM UTC

Retr0id wrote: post #91

panarky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C2PA cryptographically guarantees that the bytes came from a hardware/software signer and that the signed payload has not been modified since that signature was applied. So no, C2PA is not as easy to spoof as EXIF. And no, the existence of DRM doesn't validate the integrity or the provenance of the bytes.

And what happens when someone tells the hardware signer to sign the bytes of a fake image? What happens when someone extracts the signing key? The presence of cryptography doesn't magically make something trustworthy.

This is not the case with current systems, but could future systems be designed to be tamper-evident in a way that makes it impractical to sign fake images or extract the signing key without leaving evidence on the device?

If that were the case, I can imagine a subscription service in which you get a camera for some specified period of time, and then return it to the company that sold it for them to verify the camera hasn't been tampered with. Then the company could publish a list of which keys (unique per camera) have been verified to not be tampered with. Maybe this wouldn't stop everyone, but now the person trying to fake images has to re-do the process every so often and I imagine it's more expensive to avoid leaving evidence.

This might be too impractical to work, and it would be bad for privacy, but maybe for some people the tradeoffs actually would be worth it, someday. For now, I assume there are much cheaper and easier ways to detect faked images, at least for expert humans.

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#143

Post by csmoak » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

timmmmmmay wrote: post #62

csmoak wrote: post #36

As far as I can tell, this and the recent change to add watermarking to text outputs[1], is to become compliant with the EU AI Act[2] and CA's AI Transparency Act[3], SB-942[4]. For large enough companies, all generated AI content is required to have watermarking. [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark [2] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-pract... [3] https://www.kqed.org/news/…

The CA law in link 4 clearly says it covers "image, video, and audio output", not text output. It's right in the second paragraph.

Good point, re: the CA law. The rule for text output may be limited to the EU AI Act, which Anthropic notes as a reason in the linked article about its implementation.

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#144

Post by lelovsky » Thu, Sep 03, 2026, 3:18 PM UTC

zakisaad wrote: post #127

docjay wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. This is more like not pumping the exhaust back into the intake.

Turbos have entered the chat

Turbos don't inject exhaust air into an intake. Exhaust air spins the hot side of the turbo which causes the cool side to also spin. The cool side sucks in fresh air. Not exhaust air.

Your comment would make more sense if you mentioned exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system.

Sorry.