|
|
|
|
|
|
by srslack
1117 days ago
|
|
|
That midjourney et al are also detectable to the naked eye. Why do you need to watermark them, again? The error level analysis is off the charts with generative images. They light up like a Christmas tree. Just because you and uninformed legislators and journalists don't know how to check the ELA of an image, doesn't mean they're undetectable. And the cheaters include the bogus sources spit out by ChatGPT already. The cryptographic qualities will be lost as soon as an editor gets their hands on it, automated editing or not. It's a cat and mouse game. And also, I find it telling that you think if someone doesn't have high end hardware, they're going to pay $20/mo to OpenAI. For $20/mo, you can buy a mid-range video card and write it off. For an extra $10/mo, you can deprecate the cost and buy a high end laptop for that price, if you're a professional, and you're not locked into OpenAI. You're also assuming that 1. hardware doesn't get better and 2. techniques don't improve to run them on limited hardware. |
|
|
Again, either too slow, requiring outrageous hardware, or obviously noticeable. So far no examples to the contrary.
Don't forget, the topic is using special measures to detect undetectable with naked eye. When you can simply see the screwed up hands on a photo it's not even necessary.
> Why do you need to watermark them, again?
Why do you think I need to watermark them again?
> a mid-range video card
and a PC to put it in, a space to put the PC in, etc. With a laptop we're back in wait for an hour to see a result.
> hardware doesn't get better and 2. techniques don't improve to run them on limited hardware
We can revisit this if it consumer hardware gets good enough...