[WhatIsDukkha]

This is just performative nonsense.

As someone that creates things with tools with different media I would just hard avoid this tool that adds...

arbitrary metadata not of my choosing.

Should I seriously make a texture for a videogame with this weird DRM glorp in it?

How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?

[ericpruitt]

Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not useful. I've already seen posts online that were able to be proven as falsified because someone ran the images through Google for SynthID checks.

> How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?

For one, it's not developed by Google or OpenAI. The barrier to entry to making realistic but deceptive images with Photoshop is far higher than with AI, and there are already techniques that can, imperfectly, be used to detect the use of traditional image editing.

[WhatIsDukkha]

So 999 people that are just making an image need to be DRM'ed so that you might catch the 1 person making "realistic but deceptive" images... like this is some kind of special case of ... internet images.

[space_fountain]

This isn't DRM right? This is metadata attached to the image that makes it clear it was synthetically generated. The public has a huge incentive to know when images are AI generated and the harm to legitimate users seems pretty small: aka someone might complain online that you use AI

[WhatIsDukkha]

billions? of "fake" images not generated by ai but just photoshopped and ... not really harmful.

There is no case that any of its particularly harmful outside of things like CSAM which is illegal.

[hhh]

Have you looked at twitter or Facebook and seen the swaths of our population that are just fully believing fake AI slop about politics, crime, etc?

[the_other]

Most of those people wont be checking the provenance of the images. FB have stopped from their fact-checking processes.

Only the investigative or journalistically inclined will make use of this, and those people already fact check.

Where’s the en mass gain?

[raron]

Not yet, but it is easy to imagine many ways it would be used for DRM.

[throawayonthe]

is it though?

[deltoidmaximus]

And given that governments, large corporations and well funded bad actors will be able to generate non-water marked images this will legitimize AI generated propaganda and scam images as truth. I wouldn't be surprised if a forensic junk science grew up around it to further legitimize it as well.

[mschuster91]

> So 999 people that are just making an image need to be DRM'ed so that you might catch the 1 person making "realistic but deceptive" images

Unfortunately, simple statistics mean that you will get a lot more people than just "1" creating disinformation with AI assistance.

[bsder]

I guarantee this works poorly, at best.

If this actually works solidly, Google is in deep, deep, deep shit. It would mean that I can put a mark on my non-AI videos and demand that Google not allow upload of my identifiably copyrighted content.

This would completely obliterate YouTube.

[fc417fc802]

No, it wouldn't. ContentID is already used by Google for that exact purpose. They appear to be fully in favor of enforcing IP law provided the owning party raises a complaint.

[bsder]

ContentID is generated internally by Google and you have to qualify (aka be able to threaten Google with lawyers) in order to effectively participate. It also seems to be defeatable by such advanced techniques as flipping the video left to right.

If SynthID works, this would allow people to tag their own videos with a watermark that is invariant across various levels of compression and editing. It would enable automated scanning of YouTube videos for uploads and the consequent class-action lawsuits.

Because of that, I can fairly confidently say that this doesn't work. However, it will function to divert some attention for a while. And that's what Google and OpenAI intended in the first place.

[fc417fc802]

Fair point about the lopsidedness of the ContentID program.

Class action? Wouldn't you first have to attempt to follow the official process, filing a DMCA request? And I assume that Google would likely respect that since (unless I'm uninformed) it seems like they typically have so far? I really don't see how this escalates in a way that leaves Google at fault.

[nathancahill]

I mean I see a lot of images online where people forget or don't care enough to remove/crop the Gemini watermark.

[Jtarii]

>How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?

I'm sure you can think of a couple things that differentiate gen AI from photoshop, I believe in you.

[WhatIsDukkha]

The main difference is we are in the middle of a moral panic and people have lost perspective.

Its a tool with different modalties and affordances.

[surgical_fire]

When I saw the article I was initially skeptical. I do look down on OpenAI, Google, and other such companies.

But on second thought it is not a bad idea to be able to have a quick tool to identify an image as AI generated.

And after reading your reaction to it, I am sure now that the watermark is for the best.

[WhatIsDukkha]

So you are in the"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" school of privacy rights?

Only criminals and bad actors want private defaults?

The burden of proof is proving there is some harm or problem that needs solving and noone has managed that in this thread or generally.

[surgical_fire]

> So you are in the"nothing to hide, nothing to fear" school of privacy rights?

No, but you are in the school that teaches that false equivalence is valid rationale.

> Only criminals and bad actors want private defaults

As I was saying.

> The burden of proof is proving there is some harm or problem that needs solving and noone has managed that in this thread or generally.

"Burden of proof" is a concept borrowed from legal practice where the accuser has to offer proof that the accused commited a crime.

No crime is being implied here. Watermarking is actually a useful feature so that people can easily identify images as AI generated.

[dylan604]

Not sure what's to hide here. The caveat depends on what data is encoded into the watermark. If it's as simple as the date generated and the system that generated it so that it is easily identifiable as AI generated, I'm fine with it. Hell, I'd even say it'd be cool to embed all of the prompts used to generate the image. If it's also including the name of the user or account ID, then we start getting into gray areas. Since I'm not really on the AI hype train, I'm not all that opposed to that info either. I'll never use it so it won't affect me mindset kicks in on this one, but I'd be okay either way for/against embedding user identifiable info.

[runarberg]

For the record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots

[numpad0]

NO OFFENSE - I think this is genuinely worth digging down that:

  - you identify as an artist of sorts,  
  - you can't tell AI from human images, and  
  - you sound absolutely pissed off by this.

In my personal experience watching online flamewars, there seem to be two types of people when it comes to AI, even among highly tech literate, which are:

  - those who can tell that an image was AI generated, instantly, even at thumbnail sizes, and manually drawn over
  - those who can NOT, regardless of time or resource allotted. Tends to be perpetually angry(my prejudiced PoV).

I personally hate the state of AI image generators, but simultaneously I feel this goes above hate or ethics. There has to be some thing or process that's causing it, and it's probably not like IQ or EQ or autism or anything. Also, I am of opinion that there is some chances that prolonged exposure to AI generated data might be corrupting brains of pro-AI people, but that's again just my highly prejudiced PoV and not a fact.

What could be it? More/less exposure to older, simplistic examples? Prior exposure to human art? Childhood head traumas? Or something else?

[tskj]

Idk, wasn't there a survey by Scott Alexander or Aella or something which showed that people aren't reliably able to distinguish AI generated images from human paintings? Not that some people suck at it, but that it's not really possible in any statistically significant way, with a curated set of images.

ie. you would fail too.

[numpad0]

That[1] used a hand picked set of ambiguous images and still got 60% overall accuracy across 11k participants. I don't know much about statistics[2], but 1) 60% HAS to be statistically significant, and it was 2) under ADVERSARIAL, not neutral, condition. So people can tell.

Anyways, that's besides my point. The point of mine is that, it always turn into all-caps flamewars like this, with no middle ground or third camps, and that this has to be more of a phenomenon than regular disagreements. This isn't bikeshedding. This is Spanish bullfighting centered around a piece of red cloth.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42216694

2: I just asked Gemini "is 60% accuracy over 11k participant for a test statistically significant and why", it said "yes, it is overwhelmingly statistically significant" and "completely off the charts". They said p<0.05 figure would be 50.94%.

[tskj]

Hmm yes, I had it backwards. I agree this is very statistically significant, but the effect size is tiny. Up from random chance to a mere 60%, means that Scott proved with high statistical significant that people reliably cannot tell.

Also I'm not that worried about the adversarial conditions, any real life conditions are likely adversarial in the relevant sense. No one is one-shotting generation and serving you that, obviously output has been selected for quality. I would call Scott's test not adversarial, but fair.

[WhatIsDukkha]

I don't actually care about AI images?

Most people put so little effort into prompting them that they come out statistically "average" which makes them blatantly ugly.

Most of them are pretty bad just like 90% of everything is bad. Humans create bad art all day long too.

I gave a specific example of a making a texture for a videogame? How does that change what you actually said to me very specifically despite maybe not reading what I said?

To the extent that I'm upset its at peoples capitulation at this DRM nonsense over being overly reactive to ... internet images which dont matter.

[janalsncm]

Strictly speaking, DRM = digital rights management, which is related to intellectual property.

SynthID would only be DRM if Google/OpenAI were claiming IP rights over their images. I don’t even know if that’s legal though.

[WhatIsDukkha]

What value does "strictly speaking" bring to the discussion?

So that you don't have to address any of the issues?

[janalsncm]

Words matter? DRM means digital rights management, not simply any kind of metadata a person doesn’t like.

[WhatIsDukkha]

Yes... they do matter, perhaps using care in your understanding before attempting to nitpick?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management#Wate...

[fc417fc802]

Perhaps bother to read what you linked before being snarky?

> They are not complete DRM mechanisms in their own right, but are used as part of a system for copyright enforcement ...

Because watermarks in and of themselves are not, in fact, DRM. Even if I agree that their mass adoption by BigTech is a really bad sign for personal privacy and (eventually) freedom.

[WhatIsDukkha]

Yes I did read it years ago and again today?

If you read my original point you'd see I said "weird DRM glorp" which you and other have tried, and failed to only closely parse "DRM" so that you could nitpick poorly.

It is integral and part of DRM systems and certainly "weird DRM glorp" for an actual close reader.

DRM is not just "I cant watch X movie because DRM" even if that is the statistically prevalent understanding of DRM.

Its a suite of technologies of which watermarking is one of.

[dylan604]

Because DRM is primarily used to ensure the content is not shared in a way the owner does not allow. That is not what SynthID is doing. All it does is allow people to know it is a generated image specifically for when it starts to be widely shared on the internet.

So strictly speaking brings a lot to the discussion when you actually think about it. Stating that DRM != SynthID is addressing issues where people seem to think that DRM == SynthID. Those people are wrong, and strictly speaking need to be corrected.

[WhatIsDukkha]

You are making a category error --

"this image made by OpenAI" is a drm assertion

You wont be able to assert copyright of the picture that you added an OpenAI red bowtie to, thats a DRM issue.

[janalsncm]

Is OpenAI claiming IP rights over said image?

If yes => DRM

If no => not DRM

[WhatIsDukkha]

Yes exactly.

They make a constructive IP assertion with the watermark claim of origin that persists across mutation. (ie the "artist" signs their work)

They then quitclaim the IP assertion via TOS.

These are not equivalent rights and reversions though and now you have an IP encumbered and weird legal state because of the DRM.

[drdeca]

Accuracy is valuable.

[doctorpangloss]

You: "performative nonsense! Arbitrary metadata not of my choosing!"

Also you: well, games go through some kind of distribution, which has plenty of telemetry and metadata. Whether it is App Store with notarization, or Steam or Itch who collect analytics and know a lot about you, or your ISP if you self host your eclectic WebGL game from home. Posting on an iPhone or Android phone, to hacker News which has your email address, on your cell network which has IPv6 globally unique addresses...

"But my choosing!" You'll say. It is extremely performative of you to say, "everything that would make me 200% wrong isn't valid."

I don't know. I really hate these vibes-driven reactions to (checks notes) content attribution. Every accusation is a confession in this frame of mind. How do you not see that?

[WhatIsDukkha]

You are asserting that the existence of metadata in other venues to be proof that this form of watermarking metadata is just fine with you and should be for everyone else because... nope don't see any reason listed here.

I have an IP address so therefore this is all fine?

"Every accusation is a confession" also seems like an insinuation that I have something to hide but you have "nothing to hide, nothing to fear"ie the very generic privacy right fallacy.

As for "vibes driven"... this whole technical "fix" is a result of the reactionary "vibe" of the ai moral panic, your "notes" don't seem to be providing any perspective there?

[whatever120]

Lmao you don’t have to use these AI image tools then, it’s not that hard

[WhatIsDukkha]

Lmao I said that in my original post, lmao not that hard to read.

[Barbing]

> How old is photoshop and why is it exempt?

How does today’s maximum theoretical disinformation output per minute compare to 2021 Photoshop?

[WhatIsDukkha]

Its 2026... people are deliberately choosing to live in their own realities with no care about objective facts or moral choices.

So weird images are a big problem? No they don't matter at all.

[Barbing]

Political deepfakes on the mind here more than weird stuff.

[WhatIsDukkha]

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn't lose any voters, ok? It's, like, incredible." — Donald Trump

So what does a deepfake matter?

[Barbing]

Are there other politicians? Do disgruntled employees have bosses? Ex partners?

A national news story in the US tonight, Lyft driver caught faking photos of his messy car. Not the most intelligent fraudster as he left the Gemini logo on the corner of the image.

Providing these four examples in good faith :) also generally I _dislike_ DRM

[WhatIsDukkha]

Against MILLLIONS of legitimate uses which you don't seem to care to protect?

You should also think about whether, suddenly, courts can now trust images they see because this technology exists?

I think thats not even basically plausible.

[surgical_fire]

If they don't matter, neither does a watermark.

[WhatIsDukkha]

and you need the watermark to tell you the fish with the mustache is fake...

What image is going to change your worldview so radically that the drm saves you?

edit - to be clear you are watermarking 100,000 fishes with mustaches because of your concern over 1 image that "matters" (and you don't even have an image that matters in mind)

[rationalist]

Instead of giving you just one image "that matters", here's several that I found after a quick internet search that you can do too if you want more examples:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/openai-sora-realis...

https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections...

It doesn't extend to just photos, but videos too:

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/2056764907262247356

[surgical_fire]

Yes, let's pretend they are adding watermarks because of fishes with mustaches.