491–500 of 517 posts
Google of yore would have offered a 'not AI' type of filter in their advanced search. Present day Google is too busy selling AI shovels to quell Wall St's grumbling, to even consider what AI video will to do to the already bad 'needle in a haystack' nature of search.
A "not AI" filter is an excellent idea.
Note that this will become less useful over time, however, as Google prunes old results from its index.
I think it's smart to start trying things here. This has infinite flaws with it, but from a business and learnings standpoint it's a step toward the right direction. Over time we're going to both learn and decide what is and isn't important to designate as "AI" - Google's approach here at least breaks this into rules of what "AI" things are important to label: • Makes a real person appear to say or do something they…
As someone who studied video production two decades ago, regarding the criteria you mentioned for AI: - Makes a real person appear to say or do something they didn't say or do - Alters footage of a real event or place - Generates a realistic-looking scene that didn't actually occur These are things that have been true of edited video since even before AI was a thing. People can lie about reality with videos, and AI i…
I think anonymity is completely dead now. Not due to social networks but AI will definitely kill it. With enough resources it is possible to engage an AI arms race against whatever detector they put.
It is also possible to remove any watermarking. So the only way to prove if the content is made by humans will be requiring extensive proofs to their complete identity.
If you're from a minority or a fringe group, all of your hopes about spreading awareness anonymously on popular social media will be gone.
I'd like a content ID system for AI generated media. If someone tries to pass an image to me as authentic I can check its hash against a database that will say "this was generated by such-and-such LLM on 18 Mar 2024." Maybe even add a country of origin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see a lot of confusing authenticity with accuracy. Someone can sign the statement "Obama is white" but that doesn't make it a true statement. The use of PKI as part of showing provenance/chain of trust doesn't make any claims about the accuracy of what is signed. All it does is assert that a given identity signed something.
It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it and whether you trust that source. I want credible news outlets to start signing their content with a key I can verify as theirs. In that future all unsigned content is by definition fishy. PKI is the only way to implement trust in a digital realm.
Yeah, that's what I said about PKI. I also said there is confusion between provenance of a statement and its accuracy. Just because it's signed doesn't mean anything about its accuracy, but those that confuse the two will think that just because it is signed, or because it was signed by a certain "trustworthy" party, that indicates accuracy. PKI does not establish the trustworthiness of the other party, it only gives you confidence in the identity of the party who signed something.
George Santos could sign his resume. We know it was signed by George Santos. And yet nothing in the resume could be considered accurate (or even a falsehood) purely because it is signed. That it was proven to be signed by George Santos via PKI is independent of the fact that George Santos is a known liar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it and whether you trust that source. I want credible news outlets to start signing their content with a key I can verify as theirs. In that future all unsigned content is by definition fishy. PKI is the only way to implement trust in a digital realm.
> It's not about what is being signed, it's about who signed it Yeah, that's what I said about PKI. I also said there is confusion between provenance of a statement and its accuracy. Just because it's signed doesn't mean anything about its accuracy, but those that confuse the two will think that just because it is signed, or because it was signed by a certain "trustworthy" party, that indicates accuracy. PKI does not…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We already have people editing videos anyway, you never see the first cut. AI-matically removing umms is really just speeding up that process.
I think the suggestion being discussed was AI-cloning your voice, and then using that for text-to-speech. Audio generation, rather than automating the cuts and tweaks to the recorded audio.
The ethical challenge in my opinion, is that your status as living human narrator on a video is now irrelevant, when you're replaced by voice cloning. Perhaps we'll see a new book by "George Orwell" soon. We don't need the real man, his clone will do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...to her my voice is someone else. To her, your voice is your voice not someone else's voice. If you share a Youtube account with your wife, "someone else" means someone other than you or your wife. The more interesting and troubling point is your use of "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better!
> The more interesting and troubling point is your use of "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better! Why?
I presume you wouldn't do that? How about replacing your own voice on a video that you make, allowing your viewers to believe it's your natural voice? Are you comfortable with that deception?
Everyone has evolving opinions about this subject. For me, I don't want to converse with stand-in replacements for living people.
Looks like there is a huge grea area that they need to figure out in practice. From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491# : Examples of content creators don’t have to disclose: * Someone riding a unicorn through a fantastical world * Green screen used to depict someone floating in space * Color adjustment or lighting filters * Special effects filters, like adding background blur or vintage effects * Pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Camera sensors have measurable individual noise, if you record RAW that won't be fakeable without prior access to the device. Which doesn't help you unless non-AI images are all required to be RAW. Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a real camera to emulate. > You'd have a straightforward case for defamation if your real footage were falsely labeled, and it would…
Moreover, someone who is trying to fabricate something could obviously obtain access to a real camera to emulate. Yes, but not to your camera. Sorry for not phrasing it more clearly: individual cameras have measurable noise signatures distinct from otherwise identical models. On the lawsuit side, you just need to aver that you are the author of the original footage and are willing to prove it. As long as you are in p…
But who is the "you" in this case? There can be footage of you that wasn't taken with your camera. The person falsifying it would just claim they used their own camera. Which they would have access to ahead of time in order to incorporate its fingerprint into the video before publishing it.