[TheBrokenRail]

People generating fake photos will just use an AI that doesn't leave a watermark. We are quickly approaching the point at which AI-generated and real images just cannot be distinguished, and we're going to have to adapt to that.

[joshvm]

The other perspective is traceable cameras, such that you can have some guarantee that an image came from a particular device and wasn't AI-generated (e.g. your camera signs each image after capture).

There have been attempts to cryptographically sign images, which have largely been broken, but the principle is there: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/9955873926/why-cryptographi...

See https://contentauthenticity.org/how-it-works

[sebzim4500]

If the plan is to trust every phone and camera manufacturer to keep their key safe then the plan is stupid.

If the plan is to have a few trusted manufacturers for CCTV and police cameras than that might work, but will do little to combat misinformation.

[delusional]

There's value is raising the bar of difficulty, even if you don't make it completely impossible.

[danuker]

I see a future where training a model without a watermark is illegal.

[hospitalJail]

>We are quickly approaching the point at which AI-generated and real images just cannot be distinguished

Eh, there are so many ways where a large photo can fail. I'm obsessed with AI Art, but I think there will be human(or AI) detectors that will be paid to determine validity.

[RobotToaster]

Or just use a watermark removing AI.

[JohnFen]

> we're going to have to adapt to that.

I don't see how we can without great harm. The only adaptation that I can see is to stop trusting in anything at all, and we're already dangerously far down that road as it is.

[CatWChainsaw]

Yeah, a zero-trust society totally won't catastrophically implode, trust me bro.