Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

231–240 of 282 posts

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

#231
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a tool that tries (and probably fails) to remove the watermark (due to the arms race that large corporate machines will win) is tacitly accepting the barcode. The hacker ethos should be, first and foremost, to run open source models locally without relying on a corporation.

It doesn't make any sense at all. That's like saying browsing the internet with an ad blocker and other privacy tools is a tacit acceptance of tracking and ads, and that you should only visit websites that doesn't track or have ads.

Chrome is a great demonstration of my point here.

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

#232
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a tool that tries (and probably fails) to remove the watermark (due to the arms race that large corporate machines will win) is tacitly accepting the barcode. The hacker ethos should be, first and foremost, to run open source models locally without relying on a corporation.

This is the “instead of using seatbelts, we should invest in trains” argument.

It is the "instead of arguing about seatbelts, we should stop driving cars" argument.

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

#233
post #184

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.

Almost all Pirates do no encounter DRM in any way.

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

#234
post #172

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]

I haven't heard anything about this from the mainstream media. What bothers me is the amount of misinformation being published on social media that people are taking as truth, but now with photorealistic photos and videos. It used to be you could reverse image search something and show that it came from a previous event, or find the original in the case of doctored images.

Now that anyone can manufacture convincing images out of whole cloth, it becomes impossible for the typical user to determine if what they're seeing is legitimate; this means not only that people can manufacture images to push a false narrative but also discredit legitimate images as falsified.

The 'mainstream media is bad' narrative is one manufactured almost entirely by right-wing influencers and politicians to create an environment where they can discredit any actual evidence that doesn't align with what they or their base want to hear. Once anyone with integrity is inherently suspicious, the narrative can be set by anyone to push their agenda, and because they've demonized actual news reporting they can point to any other outlet that counters their claims and say 'look, they're lying to your face, you can't trust them!'

> the main thing is tracking, ID verification, constant social credit-like ratings, etc. That's what is coming.

Do you mean things like masked armed federal agents demanding to see your proof of citizenship or they'll lock you up (or sometimes just locking you up anyway)? Is that what's coming? Is that what you're afraid of? Or is that fine if it only happens to people you don't agree with?

These talking points, as always, are fearmongering designed to trigger paranoia in people so that they'll go along with whatever the people in charge say will fix things. No one on the left has proposed any of these things, but people on the right are constantly saying that's whats coming because it's what helps them keep their base frightened and compliant, and you've fallen for it (or are part of it, I don't know).

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

#235
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's the same walled garden principle. Benevolent Google will protect you from synthetic media by embedding invisible watermarks, from malicious apps by blocking sideloading, from porn by ID verification, etc etc. It's the same principle.

Are you opposed to people knowing that AI-generated content is AI-generated? Or are you just imagining that this is the first step towards 'someone' controlling your every move online somehow?

You know what would be a good counter to that? Don't use AI generation tools if they implement that. The argument that 'we should let AI generated media be indistinguishable from the truth because what if Google does something you don't like at some point' is pretty flimsy.

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

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same walled garden principle. Benevolent Google will protect you from synthetic media by embedding invisible watermarks, from malicious apps by blocking sideloading, from porn by ID verification, etc etc. It's the same principle.

Are you opposed to people knowing that AI-generated content is AI-generated? Or are you just imagining that this is the first step towards 'someone' controlling your every move online somehow? You know what would be a good counter to that? Don't use AI generation tools if they implement that. The argument that 'we should let AI generated media be indistinguishable from the truth because what if Google does something…

[deleted]

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I haven't heard anything about this from the mainstream media. What bothers me is the amount of misinformation being published on social media that people are taking as truth, but now with photorealistic photos and videos. It used to be you could reverse image search something and show that it came from a previous event, or find the original in the case of doctored images. Now that anyone can manufacture convincing i…

[deleted]

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

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

the genie I was talking about was AI itself, not this particular tool, to address your point about "AI misuse". I should've made that clearer, sorry. as for the rest of it: would banning a tool that breaks ROT13 make ROT13-encrypted communications safe?

AI itself has non-malevolent uses, but this doesn't. It's designed for negative uses.

ROT13 decryption does not have the same issues, and is not a good parallel here. Again, we're talking about a specific tool with specific use cases; a general algorithm being able to be used for negative ends is not the same as a tool being designed to be used for negative ends.

I also haven't mentioned banning anything; that's all on you. It really feels like you've jumped in with pre-prepared talking points rather than engaging with my comments.

To restate: "AI will benefit humanity" is a tough sell when so many people who are in to AI deliberately make tools that support the negative uses. This is an example of a project that superficially presents as high-minded, but is designed for exploitation.

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

#239
post #12
post #7

There's an underappreciated comment in the other thread about SynthID and OpenAI [0] that captures what (IMO) the hacker ethos on this should be. We care about privacy, we should not accept tools that barcode our every digital move. (note that the counter of "well, they don't do that yet " is not particularly convincing) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48200060

Building a tool that tries (and probably fails) to remove the watermark (due to the arms race that large corporate machines will win) is tacitly accepting the barcode. The hacker ethos should be, first and foremost, to run open source models locally without relying on a corporation.

multiple things can be in line with the hacker ethos

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the genie I was talking about was AI itself, not this particular tool, to address your point about "AI misuse". I should've made that clearer, sorry. as for the rest of it: would banning a tool that breaks ROT13 make ROT13-encrypted communications safe?

AI itself has non-malevolent uses, but this doesn't. It's designed for negative uses. ROT13 decryption does not have the same issues, and is not a good parallel here. Again, we're talking about a specific tool with specific use cases; a general algorithm being able to be used for negative ends is not the same as a tool being designed to be used for negative ends. I also haven't mentioned banning anything; that's all…

what I've been trying to convey to you here with ROT13 analogy is that we're better off knowing that something is broken. ROT13 is a piece of shit, and so is SynthID. whether the author's intentions were noble or malicious is utterly irrelevant.
Post reply on HN