umami_wasbi

True. It is just another avenue to label things.

Please allow me to have a little bit of time deep thoughts and organize myself. It might take a while, but I will give you a response.

And the lack of label just reinforced the confirmation bias.

The problem is you can't make a digital label that hard to circumvent. Much like a signature, you sign something you want to prove it is genuinely from you, but you won't sign something that's not from you while not signing things that are, especially in digital format. Digital signature can just be stripped out of the data. Watermarks on images can now patched with the help of inpainting models. Disclaimers in text can just be deleted. The default shouldn't be "This thing doesn't have an AI label so it would be written by human." The label itself it a slippery slope that helps misinformation spread faster and aid building alternate facts. Adding a label won't help people identify contents generated with ML models, but let them defer the identification to that mere label because it said so, or didn't.

Misinformation didn't spread fast simply because fascists obtained controls on medias. Just look at how China, Russia, and Iran launch misinformation campaigns. They didn't have to control those media, but some seed accounts that make sensational title that attracts people in more powerful position and recognition to spread it out. For more info on misinformation and disinformation, I recommend you watch Ryan McBeth's video on YT.

Yes, we need a way to identify what is and what not generated by ML models, but that should not be done by labeling ML contents.

Then what AI generated slop without label are to the plain eyes? That label just encourge the laziness of the brain as an "easy filter." Those slop without label just evelated itself to be somewhat real, becuase the label exist exploiting the laziness.

Before you said some AI slop are clearly identifiable, you can't rule out everyone can, and every piece are that identifiable. And for those images that looks a little unrealistic, just decrease the resolution to very grainy and hide those details. That will work 9 out of 10. You can't rule out that 0.1% content that pass sanity check can't do 99.9% damage.

After all, human are emotional creatures, and sansationism is real. The urge of share something emotional is why misinformation and disinformation are so common these days. People will overlook details when the urge hits.

Somethimes, labeling can do more harm than good. It just give a false sense.

That's a different thing. C2PA is proving a photo is came from a real camera, with all the editing trails. All in a cryptographic manner. This in the topic is trying to prove what not real is not real, by self claiming. You can add the watermark, remove it, add another watermark of another AI, or whatever you want. You can just forge it outright because I didn't see cryptographic proof like a digital sign is required.

Btw, the C2PA data can be stripped if you know how, just like any watermarks and digital signatures.

Think a layer deeper how can it misused to control naratives.

You read some wild allegation, no AI marks (they required to be visible), so must written by someone? Right? What if someone, even the government jumps out as said someone use an illiegal AI to generate the text? The questioning of the matter will suddently from verifying if the allegation decribed happened, to if it itself is real. The public sentiment will likely overwhelmed by "Is this fakenews?" or "Is the allegation true?" Compound that with trusted entities, discrediting anything become easier.

Give you a real example. Before Covid spread globally there was a Chinese whistleblower, worked in the hospital and get infected. He posted a video online about how bad it was, and quickly got taken down by the government. What if it happened today with the regulation in full force? Government can claim it is AI generated. The whistleblower doesn't exist. Nor the content is real. 3 days later, they arrested a guy, claiming he spread fakenews using AI. They already have a very efficient way to control naratives, and this piece of garbage just give them an express way.

You though that only a China thing? No, every entities including governments are watching, especially the self-claimed friend of Putin and Xi, and the absolute free speech lover. Don't think it is too far to reach you yet.

That's what they want. When people doing it locally, they can discredit anything as AI generated. The point isn't about enforability, but can it be a tool to control narative.

Edit: it doesn't matter if people actually generating locally, but if people can possibly doing it. As long as it is plausible, the argument stands and the loop completes.

Lol. So everything and anything can just be AI generated fakenews.

Looking at linuxserver/jackett on Docker Hub, it seems it indeed update everyday.

That means only "authorized" clients equipped with "correct" DRM module can ever plays those video. If I have to guess, it would be Widevine L3 for browsers.

So TSMC have its own fab plus at max 50% of Intel fab? Isn't that... monopoly?