61–70 of 198 posts
Well, they'll finally find out that no one wants to look at AI generated pictures or text. Once they do that, the tool will fail for the public and only work for the government.
I have found great success of getting rid of it by masking every 2nd pixel, regenerating missing pixels and then once again masking every 2nd pixel offset by 1.
Used an off the shelf model to fill in the pixels, but I also exported a depthmap first (before any alternations) and denoised it so generated masked pixels comform to the original content. The result was obviously not 100% perfect, but with more time and a model fine tuned for this specific use-case would be able to remove any kind of ai watermarking without too many issues.
This is just performative nonsense. As someone that creates things with tools with different media I would just hard avoid this tool that adds... arbitrary metadata not of my choosing. Should I seriously make a texture for a videogame with this weird DRM glorp in it? How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?
>How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? I'm sure you can think of a couple things that differentiate gen AI from photoshop, I believe in you.
Its a tool with different modalties and affordances.
if you tell it to generate the AI image with a black background you can visually see the synthid with a good enough monitor, it's just a repeating fuzzy pattern, nothing special. I have found great success of getting rid of it by masking every 2nd pixel, regenerating missing pixels and then once again masking every 2nd pixel offset by 1. Used an off the shelf model to fill in the pixels, but I also exported a depthma…
This is just performative nonsense. As someone that creates things with tools with different media I would just hard avoid this tool that adds... arbitrary metadata not of my choosing. Should I seriously make a texture for a videogame with this weird DRM glorp in it? How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?
Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not useful. I've already seen posts online that were able to be proven as falsified because someone ran the images through Google for SynthID checks. > How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? For one, it's not developed by Google or OpenAI. The barrier to entry to making realistic but deceptive images with Photoshop is far higher than with AI, and there are al…
This is just performative nonsense. As someone that creates things with tools with different media I would just hard avoid this tool that adds... arbitrary metadata not of my choosing. Should I seriously make a texture for a videogame with this weird DRM glorp in it? How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?
Strictly speaking, DRM = digital rights management, which is related to intellectual property. SynthID would only be DRM if Google/OpenAI were claiming IP rights over their images. I don’t even know if that’s legal though.
So that you don't have to address any of the issues?
This is just performative nonsense. As someone that creates things with tools with different media I would just hard avoid this tool that adds... arbitrary metadata not of my choosing. Should I seriously make a texture for a videogame with this weird DRM glorp in it? How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?
> How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? How does today’s maximum theoretical disinformation output per minute compare to 2021 Photoshop?
So weird images are a big problem? No they don't matter at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very similar to audiowmark https://github.com/swesterfeld/audiowmark You can stuff per-item database unique IDs, user IDs, geohashes, and other nefarious things inside. We need to protest this LOUDLY. Our devices are being locked down, we're having attestation and trusted computing forced on us, the internet all over the world is undergoing age verification with full ID verification. Just because this is on "…
Most cameras already produce metadata. You can remove this metadata. Can you not also detect and remove watermarks?
Watermark, by design, irreversibly modifies the original data, and is, by design, hard to remove without producing detectable artifacts (or rendering the data useless altogether).
In short, the answer is no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How old is photoshop and why is it exempt? How does today’s maximum theoretical disinformation output per minute compare to 2021 Photoshop?
Its 2026... people are deliberately choosing to live in their own realities with no care about objective facts or moral choices. So weird images are a big problem? No they don't matter at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its 2026... people are deliberately choosing to live in their own realities with no care about objective facts or moral choices. So weird images are a big problem? No they don't matter at all.
Political deepfakes on the mind here more than weird stuff.
So what does a deepfake matter?