• joneskind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m sad to inform you that the first thing I thought when seeing this was “maybe it’s AI” and my day is ruined

    Fuck

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 months ago

      Many of the camera companies are now making cameras that can put a hash in the photo to identify it as real. Hopefully before long we start to have a way to verify this on the client side.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        What prevents the AI from putting a hash in the photo?

        Does it get validated online so that the camera company keeps a copy of the hash on their end? (Which is also problematic.)

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          The hash would (hopefully) be authenticated. If you want to google it, search for “HMAC”.

          This is assuming that the local key doesn’t get leaked, which is assuming a lot.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Aren’t these hardware keys unusable outside the hardware?

            You’d need to somehow have the AI authenticate the image through the cameras hardware to use it.

            Still possible though.

            • andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’ll probably be stored in something like a TPM, whose primary purpose is to make intact extraction of the keys difficult or impossible. A few keys might become compromised but in this scenario (unlike DRM decryption) it’s easy to ignore those keys. There’s always the chance an exploit becomes available and is more widely used, though, in which case it would definitely be less valuable.

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I had many of the same questions. I have not investigated further. I’m sure some enterprising hacker will figure out how to hack it like they do everything else.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          I wonder if this will backfire in the way printers adding yellow dots to pages backfired.

        • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Don’t most of these photographs use editing to at least touch them up a little? I don’t think many published photographs are actually the raw photos.

          • Esca@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            Any good photographer will shoot in raw. And in order to get a picture it has to be processed on a computer, there is no way around it. I wonder how that’s supposed to work with these watermarks.

      • alekwithak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        This has been discussed but not implemented, yet. Adobe and other software companies would also have their own hashes. It is an interesting solution, that is for sure. Time will tell if it’s effective.

    • jol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      I thought exactly the same, and there’s not much that can be done to absolutely convince me that it’s not :(