221–230 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?
This sort of solution to the fake image problem, makes it easier for stalin not harder. If everyone can make fake images that is one thing. If only the dictator can, well that is much worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the genie is out of the bottle. the sooner you let go of the notion that it can be kvetched out of existence the less frustrated you'll feel. for example, 35 years ago PGP was a "casually malevolent" thing, enabling terrorists and pedophiles to email each other with impunity. the effort to make math illegal had (very predictably) failed and now we have encryption everywhere. did the world end? how do you feel about C…
That argument is a lot less convincing (and sincere) when we're talking about a specific tool with a very specific purpose, rather than maths itself. In much the same way, you can make pro-gun arguments based on sport shooting, but not when you're holding a landmine. This is a very specific tool with the purpose of making it easier to lie, in an area where the kinds of lies people tell are directly injurious to socie…
as for the rest of it: would banning a tool that breaks ROT13 make ROT13-encrypted communications safe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> AI media generation is a red herring, the main thing is tracking, ID verification, constant social credit-like ratings, etc. That's what is coming. 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 t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they didn't win by attacking piracy head-on though, they made capitulation easy & nice enough for us to happily go along.
They did a bit of everything: attacking head-on, lobbying, providing alternatives. And eventually, it worked.
We need to get to a place where we're checking digital signatures to see which humans were involved in the creation of something, and ignoring everything else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The watermarking should be on those things we want to verify as something that was not generated or manipulated. Something you'd add to, for instance, cameras. Putting them on the generated/manipulated is backwards as you can never get every model to watermark.
That model is equally bad though. Given that you're writing this in a discussion about gen AI watermarks, how in the world did you come up with the idea that Gen AI wouldn't be able to add a watermark?
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.
Preserving the illusion that that assumption is still useful only helps the people who are exploiting it.
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.