Google Search To Show If An Image Is AI Generated, Edited Or Taken With Camera.

Comments

• apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Google is planning to roll out a technology that will identify whether a photo was taken with a camera, edited by software like Photoshop, or produced by generative AI models.

  So they are going to use AI to detect AI.

  source

  • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    They’re going to use AI to train AI*

    So nothing new here

    source

    • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Use AI to train AI to detect AI, got it.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• nyan@lemmy.cafe ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  You may be able to prove that a photo with certain metadata was taken by a camera (my understanding is that that’s the method), but you can’t prove that a photo without it wasn’t, because older cameras won’t have the necessary support, and wiping metadata is trivial anyway. So is it better to have more false negatives than false positives? Maybe. My suspicion is that it won’t make much difference to most people.

  source

  • T156@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    A fair few sites will also wipe metadata for safety reasons, since photo metadata can include things like the location where the photo was taken.

    source
  • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Even if you assume the images you care about have this metadata, all it takes is a hacked camera (which could be as simple as carefully taking a photo of your AI-generated image) to fake authenticity.

    source

    • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      You don’t even need a hacked camera to edit the metadata, you just need exiftool.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• tal@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  looks dubious

  The problem here is that if this is unreliable – and I’m skeptical that Google can produce a system that will work across-the-board – then you have a synthesized image that now has Google attesting to be non-synthetic.

  source

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    The problem here is that if this is unreliable…

    And the problem if it is reliable is that everyone becomes dependent on Google to literally define reality.

    source
  • xenoclast@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Fun fact about AI products (or any gold rush economy) it doesn’t have to work. It just has to sell.

    source
  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I guess this would be a good reason to include some exif data when images are hosted on websites, one of the only ways to tell an image is true from my little understanding.

    source

    • CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Exif data can be faked.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      No, the default should be removing everything but maybe the date because of privacy implications.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• stupidcasey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Lol, knowing the post processing done with your IPhone this whole thing sounds like an actual joke, does no one remember the fake moon incident? Your photos have been Ai generated for years and no one noticed, no algorithm on earth could tell the difference between a phone photo and an Ai photo because they are the same thing.

  source

  • remer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Are you saying the moon landing was faked or did I miss something?

    source

    • stupidcasey@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      You absolutely missed everything, the moon is fake literally… when you take a picture of the moon your camera uses AI photo manipulation to change your garage picture to a completely Ai generated image because taking pictures of the moon is actually pretty difficult so it makes pictures look much better and in %99 of cases it is better but in edge cases like trying to take a picture of something flying in front of the moon like the ISS or a cloud it is not, also it may cause issues if you try to introduce your photos in court because everything you take is inherently doctored.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• restingboredface@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’s of course troubling that AI images will go unidentified through this service (I am also not at all confident that Google can do this well/consistently).

  However I’m also worried about the opposite side of this problem- real images being mislabeled as AI. I can see a lot of bad actors using that to discredit legitimate news sources or stories that don’t fit their narrative.

  source
• Dagamant@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I watched a video on methods for detecting AI generation in images. One of the methods was comparing the noise on different color channels. Cameras have different noise in different channels while AI doesn’t. There is also stuff like JPG compression artifacts in other image formats.

  So there are technical solutions to it but I wouldn’t know how to automate them.

  source

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Those would be easy things to add, if you were trying to pass it off as real.

    source

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Take a high-quality AI image, add some noise, blur, and compress it a few times.

      Or, even better, print it and take a picture of the print out, making sure your photo of the photo is blurry enough to hide the details that would give it away.

      source
• Rob200@lemmy.autism.place ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Not sure how to fel about this, but if they are honest about the labels and accurate 100% of the time with labeling it’s a nice feature for independant fact checkers Image

  source