Do you think this would actually be used for something other than memes and misinformation?
What, AI image generation? Sure. Come visit at !imageai@sh.itjust.works. Or look at civitai.com for a large collection of people working with them.
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
5236 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No thanks.
I can see a few useful use-cases, mainly deleting unwanted stuff / people from a photo.
That's a very good point! I never thought about the power of removing things. Would be nice to see it save photos that are out of focus, in a bad perspective or with a finger over half of the selfie.
I like using the magic eraser for photos of my daughter and being able to remove other kids and send it to the rest of the family or frame it.
This feature already exists, it's called Magic Eraser and it's on most Pixel phones. I feel this is something different and needs to be considered differently.
Yeah, we finally start to get accountability from public officials via bodycam and now here comes technology that will make it trivial to skew the narrative
It's still rather easy to identify AI generated pictures, especially of people. There's still way to go untill we get video that's sufficiently good that it's difficult to tell it's fake. It's absolutely going to be a problem sooner or later but I doubt we're anywhere near.
Also, the one benefit this all comes with is the plausible deniability when you're accused of something even if it really was you. Say you have nudes leak online for example. You can just say they're not real and it would be really difficult to prove otherwise.
Before photographs or audio recordings to prove something, I understand that it was common to have trusted individuals or entities attest to something.
That's a technology that we haven't used for a while, but I imagine that we could dust it off and use it for many of the same roles as we do recordings. Could probably have services that just deal with that.
Testimony has always existed in the court room, it hasn't gone away. The relative difficulty of believable photo manipulation to add in new subjects, has up until now been out of reach for the average person so generally speaking it's been a nice enhancement of authenticity to testimony.
I think chain of custody will be more important than eyewitness testimony in the future. In the case of CCTV or body cam footage, it will be a combination of the footage being digitally signed by the recording device, and being able to prove the footage could not have been tampered with along the way.
So, a record of where and when the footage was recorded, when it was transferred from the device, where it was held after this, and that the storage location was also secure.
fyi that is a photo by Dorothea Lange not a photo of Dorothea Lange
I find the author's reasoning strained. They use flat Earthers as an example of the power of photographs to "prove" reality?
I question the central premise that photographs were ever the foundation of reality. Haven't filmmakers been fooling us with photography for over a hundred years?
Yeah, clearly the author doesn’t know about Stalin
From the article you clearly didn't read:
Photography has been used in the service of deception for as long as it has existed. (Consider Victorian spirit photos, the infamous Loch Ness monster photograph, or Stalin’s photographic purges of IRL-purged comrades.)
Yeah, clearly the author doesn’t know about the Loch Ness monster
k
Did you read the article or comment on the title
i think its more about the ease.
you used to need a team, then a qualified professional, now any moron can tell a machine to do it.
That all comes up in the article. The core idea the author is getting at is the general ease of fabricated situations is coming in a new way that previously hasn't been a couple clicks for the average user. Think less about political turmoil (propaganda has existed as long as there as been politics) and more about how your Karen aunt can add a worm to their Google review for spaghetti. Most people won't learn Photoshop, most people can click a few buttons.
I think it's still important to consider the tomorrow we're being thrust into even if we could do this on a smaller scale yesterday.
This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what you can do with tools like ComfyUI and stable diffusion. It's sad to see how all the hate around AI image generation prevents people from being educated about it, which in the end is beneficial to bad faith actors using these tools to create misinformation. If people weren't afraid to learn how it works they wouldn't be fooled as easily by it. The days of 8 finger hands are over.
Have you seen flux.1? It blows stable diffusion out the water and it just came out, boomers and millennials alike might be unable to confirm anything anymore