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

Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

digitaldigging.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#31

Post by varun_ch »

zb3 wrote: post #29
mysterydip wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the watermark is a giant “This is fake” diagonally across the center of the image, everything will get shared virally in the 3 second attention span of doomscrolling without a second look.

We already have open source image editing models, so how is this Google fault? This is UGC.. If I type something nefarious in Google search bar and then share that screenshot, is Google to blame for not even refusing rendering that text inside the input field?

What is an AI image generator inside Google Earth useful for if not generating believable but fake images that look like they’re from Google Earth?

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#32

Post by boston_clone »

zb3 wrote: post #29
mysterydip wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the watermark is a giant “This is fake” diagonally across the center of the image, everything will get shared virally in the 3 second attention span of doomscrolling without a second look.

We already have open source image editing models, so how is this Google fault? This is UGC.. If I type something nefarious in Google search bar and then share that screenshot, is Google to blame for not even refusing rendering that text inside the input field?

instead of making potentially weak comparisons, could we consider why this feature was implemented in the first place? image editing models exist for good reason - I struggle to see a clear “why” for this product other than to cram generative content in yet another existing product.

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#33

Post by zb3 »

varun_ch wrote: post #31
zb3 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have open source image editing models, so how is this Google fault? This is UGC.. If I type something nefarious in Google search bar and then share that screenshot, is Google to blame for not even refusing rendering that text inside the input field?

What is an AI image generator inside Google Earth useful for if not generating believable but fake images that look like they’re from Google Earth?

That's a separate issue - of course it's only so that someone at google can tick a box "I've shipped an AI feature" to get promoted.

But we didn't gain any new ability to produce fake images, fake images can already be produced easily, even those that pretend they're from Google Earth. This was already possible, so I don't understand the concern here..

Are tech companies now responsible for everything the user does? That would end with total enslavement, don't go in that direction.

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#34

Post by varun_ch »

zb3 wrote: post #33
varun_ch wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an AI image generator inside Google Earth useful for if not generating believable but fake images that look like they’re from Google Earth?

That's a separate issue - of course it's only so that someone at google can tick a box "I've shipped an AI feature" to get promoted. But we didn't gain any new ability to produce fake images, fake images can already be produced easily, even those that pretend they're from Google Earth. This was already possible, so I don't understand the concern here.. Are tech companies now responsible for everything the user does?…

tech companies are responsible for the products they ship, aren’t they? a company shouldn’t release something that could only be used for Bad Things

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#35

Post by zb3 »

varun_ch wrote: post #34
zb3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a separate issue - of course it's only so that someone at google can tick a box "I've shipped an AI feature" to get promoted. But we didn't gain any new ability to produce fake images, fake images can already be produced easily, even those that pretend they're from Google Earth. This was already possible, so I don't understand the concern here.. Are tech companies now responsible for everything the user does?…

tech companies are responsible for the products they ship, aren’t they? a company shouldn’t release something that could only be used for Bad Things

It could be used for "good things" too, as you could see in their promo post.

If I make a text editor, am I now responsible if someone uses it to write Mein Kampf? Back then people didn't complain that a notepad doesn't censor user input, but if we continue with your logic, we'll be surveiled constantly, I don't want that dystopian future to become reality.

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#36

Post by voakbasda »

varun_ch wrote: post #34
zb3 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a separate issue - of course it's only so that someone at google can tick a box "I've shipped an AI feature" to get promoted. But we didn't gain any new ability to produce fake images, fake images can already be produced easily, even those that pretend they're from Google Earth. This was already possible, so I don't understand the concern here.. Are tech companies now responsible for everything the user does?…

tech companies are responsible for the products they ship, aren’t they? a company shouldn’t release something that could only be used for Bad Things

So you want to ban guns? Good and bad quickly become subjective, depending on how you view their use in different scenarios.

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#37

Post by ashleyn »

paxys wrote: post #9
SwellJoe wrote: post #8

There are a lot of things reasonable people would use AI for. This is not one of them. This is a crazy idea. Just plain bonkers. No sense to be found. "Oh, you want to see what's at that location? How about we make something up for you?"

Yeah this has “PM trying to put an AI release on their promo packet” written all over it.

They could've done a lot more interesting things with AI in Google Earth though. Think planning a travel itinerary, or plaintext search of a POI.

I was just using Earth to plan an irrigation setup in my backyard, would've been damn nice to have MCP there to generate paths and circular regions illustrating coverage.

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#38

Post by ncr100 »

xtajv wrote: post #14
ncr100 wrote: post #6

Does this move us closer to needing registries of authentic images? (White-listing? Only a partial solution.) Google's response today, in addition to removing nano banana from Earth, was that people should just use Google's synthID(?) AI detection app, to determine if this is a blacklisted (effectively) image. Of course that's impractical because a million people could quickly receive the image .. the image would mak…

I've toyed with the idea of issuing LTE IMEI-like identity numbers for digital cameras (and a LTE IMSI/SIM-like identity number to identify a paying accountholder who wishes to subscribe to an image-creator attestation service). Each photograph would attach cryptographically-verifiable metadata attesting to both the identity of the camera and the person who owns it. (Say, m="Camera 123 owned by subscriber 456 created…

Very nice. I think this is important work.

I also think we need to consider modulating the meaning .. eg This camera is owned by XYZ person ... Since I think it could be a much more short term ownership.

Ie if I take one of these photographs and then register the media with my identity / private keys then I can assert This Is Mine.

Every media output before and after that from this camera is only circumstantially related to me.

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#39

Post by ncr100 »

r721 wrote: post #17
xtajv wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've toyed with the idea of issuing LTE IMEI-like identity numbers for digital cameras (and a LTE IMSI/SIM-like identity number to identify a paying accountholder who wishes to subscribe to an image-creator attestation service). Each photograph would attach cryptographically-verifiable metadata attesting to both the identity of the camera and the person who owns it. (Say, m="Camera 123 owned by subscriber 456 created…

Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Credentials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Authenticity_Initiativ...

Nice.

I see this as A stepping stone to personal digital identity.

Re: Nano Banana 2 removed from Google Earth

#40

Post by altairprime »

xtajv wrote: post #14
ncr100 wrote: post #6

Does this move us closer to needing registries of authentic images? (White-listing? Only a partial solution.) Google's response today, in addition to removing nano banana from Earth, was that people should just use Google's synthID(?) AI detection app, to determine if this is a blacklisted (effectively) image. Of course that's impractical because a million people could quickly receive the image .. the image would mak…

I've toyed with the idea of issuing LTE IMEI-like identity numbers for digital cameras (and a LTE IMSI/SIM-like identity number to identify a paying accountholder who wishes to subscribe to an image-creator attestation service). Each photograph would attach cryptographically-verifiable metadata attesting to both the identity of the camera and the person who owns it. (Say, m="Camera 123 owned by subscriber 456 created…

Various digital cameras already support in-camera crypto-signatures created by the sensor package iirc, it’s just not the sort of thing you find in typical consumer hardware. Look into forensics specialty gear perhaps?
Post reply on HN