The tech giant is among companies pushing out AI tools while promising to build more tools to protect against their misuse

WP gift article expires in 14 days.

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/5UW77

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    10 months ago

    Seems a lot of people are misinterpreting this.

    The goal is not to protect the general public from misinformation. The goal is to prevent the pool of new training data from getting TOO contaminated with AI generated images, which would make it worthless for training new AI

    • jana@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      10 months ago

      The article itself makes the connection:

      As the 2024 presidential campaign ramps up, concern is quickly rising that such images might be used to spread false information.

      Though, I guess shame on us for expecting better journalism these days.

    • Mirodir@lemmy.fmhy.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think that:

      The tool embeds a digital “watermark” directly into the image that can’t be seen by the human eye but can be picked up by a computer that’s been trained to read it.

      Is gonna be helpful for keeping AI generated images out of training sets. It would require the people who make the model to actually implement that tool into their model.

      I don’t think most researchers not affiliated with google will chose to do that.

      • wahming@monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Most major developers of AI generated imagery, at least the corporates, will do it as they share the common interest of not polluting their sample data. Open source imagery might make it optional, but the functionality will be implemented. Either the PRs will be submitted by one of the corporations, or marketing like this article will convince the devs to implement it.

        Remember, they don’t need EVERYBODY to implement it. As long as this reduces the amount of unmarked AIgen images by a reasonable percentage, it’s worth doing for them.

  • The Bard in Green@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 months ago

    Seems impractical and likely to cause a different set of problems.

    If something like this is added to Stable Diffusion for instance, the OpenSource community will quickly create forks and tools to remove it.

    Also seems likely that the Stable Diffusion crowd will create tools to ADD this watermark to images that are otherwise real… thus calling the authenticity of any image into question.

      • Paradox@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Not if they have a way to strip watermarks too, as has happened with every other system like this

  • restingboredface@wayfarershaven.eu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why is the focus only on identifying AI generated photos? Why not force a tag on all AI generated content period? That would help with a lot of applications.

  • jana@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 months ago

    The solution is … Embed a watermark when the image is generated? How will that help stop deliberate disinformation created with other tools

    • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Oh, they’ll totally sell the ability to generate without the watermark. Because of course, corporations have never been responsible for spreading disinformation.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I guess they could call it out better, even automatically, but someone further up is suggesting the real goal is to stop AI photos from appearing in future AI training sets, which would be counterproductive.