this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
705 points (99.3% liked)

cute dogs, cats, and other animals

10894 readers
1 users here now

founded 4 years ago
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] joneskind@lemmy.world 64 points 5 months ago (4 children)

I’m sad to inform you that the first thing I thought when seeing this was “maybe it’s AI” and my day is ruined

Fuck

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 31 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Many of the camera companies are now making cameras that can put a hash in the photo to identify it as real. Hopefully before long we start to have a way to verify this on the client side.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 18 points 5 months ago (2 children)

What prevents the AI from putting a hash in the photo?

Does it get validated online so that the camera company keeps a copy of the hash on their end? (Which is also problematic.)

[–] Tja@programming.dev 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The hash would (hopefully) be authenticated. If you want to google it, search for "HMAC".

This is assuming that the local key doesn't get leaked, which is assuming a lot.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Aren't these hardware keys unusable outside the hardware?

You'd need to somehow have the AI authenticate the image through the cameras hardware to use it.

Still possible though.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 3 points 5 months ago

It'll probably be stored in something like a TPM, whose primary purpose is to make intact extraction of the keys difficult or impossible. A few keys might become compromised but in this scenario (unlike DRM decryption) it's easy to ignore those keys. There's always the chance an exploit becomes available and is more widely used, though, in which case it would definitely be less valuable.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

I had many of the same questions. I have not investigated further. I'm sure some enterprising hacker will figure out how to hack it like they do everything else.

[–] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Hmm, that could potentially also get rid of photoshopping. Would be awesome!

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

I wonder if this will backfire in the way printers adding yellow dots to pages backfired.

[–] Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Don't most of these photographs use editing to at least touch them up a little? I don't think many published photographs are actually the raw photos.

[–] Esca@lemmy.one 6 points 5 months ago

Any good photographer will shoot in raw. And in order to get a picture it has to be processed on a computer, there is no way around it. I wonder how that's supposed to work with these watermarks.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Idk, could lead to just less editing in general.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

This has been discussed but not implemented, yet. Adobe and other software companies would also have their own hashes. It is an interesting solution, that is for sure. Time will tell if it's effective.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I thought exactly the same, and there's not much that can be done to absolutely convince me that it's not :(

[–] fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This picture has been around a lot longer than modern AI photo generation

[–] tal@lemmy.today 7 points 5 months ago

searches Tineye

First found on Dec 8, 2014

Almost a decade old, at least.

[–] gorysubparbagel@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Think I remember seeing this picture a few years ago before ai image generation was really popular

[–] CheeryLBottom@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Same here, and it has been a while

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Same here. Sad that my first thought was to check for AI weirdness