Just the threat of being able to summarily remove AI content and hand out account discipline will cut down drastically on AI and practically eliminate the really low effort ‘slop’, it’s not perfect but it’s damn useful.
Comment on Jack Dorsey Releases Vine Reboot Where AI Content Is Banned
henfredemars@lemdro.id 1 month ago
Enforcing that ban is going to be difficult.
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 month ago
It's also going to make it really easy to take down the content you don't like, just accuse it of being AI and watch the witch hunting roll in. I've seen plenty of examples of traditional artists getting accused of using AI in other forums, I don't imagine this will be any different.
oftenawake@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
I got accused of being an AI for writing a comment reply to someone which was merely informative, empathic and polite!
nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
People already mass report to abuse existing AI tools. It’s already starting to be accounted for and I can’t imagine it so much as slowing down implementing an anti AI rule if I’m being honest.
Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The ban doesn’t need a 100% perfect AI screening protocol to be a success.
Just the fact that AI is banned might appeal to a wide demographic. If the ban is actually enforced, even in just 25% of the most blatant cases, it might be just the push a new platform needs to take off.
osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 1 month ago
Only if we let it be. There's no technical reason why the origin of a video couldn't have a signature generated by the capture device, or legally requiring AI models to do the same for any content they generate. Anything without an origin sticker is assumed to be garbage by default. Obviously there would need to be some way to make captures either anonymous or not at the user's choice, and nation states can evade these things with sufficient effort like they always do, but we could cut a lot of slop out by doing some simple stuff like that.
kinsnik@lemmy.world 1 month ago
while a phone signing a video to show that it was captured with the camera is possible, it will be easy too to fake the signature. all it would take would be a hacked device to steal the private key. and even if apple/google/samsung have perfectly secure systems to sign the origin of the video, there would be ton of cheaper phones that would likely won’t.
pennomi@lemmy.world 1 month ago
“Legally” doesn’t mean shit if it’s not enforceable. Besides, removing watermarks is trivial.
There is no technically rigorous way to filter AI content, unfortunately.
edryd@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Just because something might be hard means we should give up before even trying?
Rothe@piefed.social 1 month ago
Of course not, but I don’t think anybody suggested that.
scytale@piefed.zip 1 month ago
They’re gonna use AI to detect the use of AI.
henfredemars@lemdro.id 1 month ago
Not if I use AI to hide my use of AI first!
SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 1 month ago
They are going to implement an AI detector detector detector.
henfredemars@lemdro.id 1 month ago
It’s detectors all the way down.
But of course, as a tortoise, you would know that.
urandom@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Trace busta busta?
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
But then they’ll implement an AI detector detector deflector.
gerryflap@feddit.nl 1 month ago
Fun fact, this loop is kinda how one of the generative ML algorithms works. This algorithm is called Generative Adversarial Networks or GAN.
You have a so-called Generator neural network G that generates something (usually images) from random noise and a Discriminator neural network D that can take images (or whatever you’re generating) as input and outputs whether this is real or fake (not actually in a binary way, but as a continuous value). D is trained on images from G, which should be classified as fake, and real images from a dataset that should be classified as real. G is trained to generate images from random noise vectors that fool D into thinking they’re real. D is, like most neural networks, essentially just a mathematical function so you can just compute how to adjust the generated image to make it appear more real using derivatives.
In the perfect case these 2 networks battle until they reach peak performance. In practice you usually need to do some extra shit to prevent the whole situation from crashing and burning. What often happens, for instance, is that D becomes so good that it doesn’t provide any useful feedback anymore. It sees the generated images as 100% fake, meaning there’s no longer an obvious way to alter the generated image to make it seem more real.
Sorry for the infodump :3
danc4498@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Spoken like a true AI.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
Well the AI-based AI detector isn’t actively making creative people’s work disappear into a sea of gen-AI “art” at least.
There’s good and bad use cases for AI, I consider this a better use case than generating art. Now the question is whether or not it’s feasible to detect AI this way.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Indeed.
I have an Immich instance running on my home server that backs up my and my wife’s photos. It’s like an open source Google Photos.
One of its features is an local AI model that recognises faces and tags names on them, as well as doing stuff like recognising when a picture is of a landscape, food, etc.
Likewise, Firefox has a really good offline translation feature that runs locally and is open source.
AI doesn’t have to be bad. Big tech and venture capital is just choosing to make it so.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Seems that way: Image
Krompus@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Ouroboros