71–80 of 81 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean? There is nothing unenforceable about this.
How would you prove that something was generated by AI yet did not include a watermark?
I wonder how it stands up to feature analysis. "Generate a pure white image." "Generate a pure black image." Channel diff, extract steganographic signature for analysis.
I just tried this idea, and it looks like it isn't that simple. > "Generate a pure white image." It refused no matter how I phrased it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > "Generate a pure black image." It did give me one. In a new chat, I asked Gemini to detect SynthID with "@synthid". It responded with: > The image contains too little information to make a diagnosis regarding whether it was created with Google AI. It is primarily a solid b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you not aware of open-weights models and local generation? I think the vast majority of deepfake content is being genned in basements on RTX cards, not on public providers. People already have all this content, and have archives of it, and can run it airgapped. Cat is out of bag.
I am well aware of them, and I'm well aware that they are very niche as I'm the only one of my surrounding to use one of those. And those very models are being developed by tech giants and VC backed companies, on which regulation have leverage. The fact that a small black market exists doesn't mean regulating the mainstream market doesn't matters. Also, most people like you fail to realizes that the EU only has manda…
I agree in theory, but all it takes is one deepfake video to cause the kinds of trouble the regulations are designed to stop, right?
Note that watermarking (yes, including text) is a requirement[1] of the EU AI Act, and goes into effect in August 2026, so I suspect we'll see a lot more work in this space in the near future. [1] Specifically, "...synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated", see https://a…
EU really like unenforceable regulations, doesn't it?
Or do you mean the EU that forced Apple to finally ditch its proprietary Lightning port on its iDevices and replace it with the universally compatable USB-C instead?
Or do you mean the EU that mandated the Right to Repair so manufacturers were forced to reduce planned obsolence?
Oh, and by the way, India mandated the same kind of norms too. And guess what? That nation is faring off better thanks to such societal-friendly governance.
I think that AI service providers should have safeguards and encoded attribution. This solution helps when people lazily share things with friends or on social media I suppose, rather than stopping motivated bad actors.
The only way to actually implement this I think would be to ban all local models, and to have the service providers store perceptual hashes all generated images and video. It feels like the cat's out of the bag already though (for images at least).
I genuinely feel that in this AI world we need the inverse. That every analogue or digital photo taken by traditional means of photography will need to be signed by a certificate, so anyone can verify its authenticity.
And how do you fix the analog hole? Because if you can point your "verified" camera at a sufficiently high-resolution screen, we're worse off than when we started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am well aware of them, and I'm well aware that they are very niche as I'm the only one of my surrounding to use one of those. And those very models are being developed by tech giants and VC backed companies, on which regulation have leverage. The fact that a small black market exists doesn't mean regulating the mainstream market doesn't matters. Also, most people like you fail to realizes that the EU only has manda…
> The EU has no business dealing with people using SDXL finetunes on RTX cards in their garage. I agree in theory, but all it takes is one deepfake video to cause the kinds of trouble the regulations are designed to stop, right?
The general use or creation of deepfake for porn, harassment, or election manipulation, is outside of what the EU can regulate as an institution, it is the responsibility of member states. (The same way the EU can impose rules on platform with respect to copyright violations, but cannot enact rules against piracy in general, these are always made by member states).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you not aware of open-weights models and local generation? I think the vast majority of deepfake content is being genned in basements on RTX cards, not on public providers. People already have all this content, and have archives of it, and can run it airgapped. Cat is out of bag.
I am well aware of them, and I'm well aware that they are very niche as I'm the only one of my surrounding to use one of those. And those very models are being developed by tech giants and VC backed companies, on which regulation have leverage. The fact that a small black market exists doesn't mean regulating the mainstream market doesn't matters. Also, most people like you fail to realizes that the EU only has manda…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you prove that something was generated by AI yet did not include a watermark?
You don't have to prove anything? You just have to mark the outputs of your slop generator appropriately. "Proving" one way or another is their problem when it comes to enforcement.
Remove/Bypass Google's SynthID AI Watermark - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46692023 - Jan 2026 (1 comment)
SynthID – A tool to watermark and identify content generated through AI - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45071677 - Aug 2025 (83 comments)
SynthID Detector – a new portal to help identify AI-generated content - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44045946 - May 2025 (1 comment)