China has released a set of guidelines on labeling internet content that is generated or composed by artificial intelligence (AI) technology, which are set to take effect on Sept. 1.

  • perestroika@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    20 hours ago

    As an exception to most regulations that we hear about from China, this approach actually seems well considered - something that might benefit people and work.

    Similar regulations should be considered by other countries.

    • blurryface@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      They plan to ban hating on the supreme leader.

      China is long ahead with that so maybe there is hope.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Stable Diffusion has the option to include an invisible watermark. I saw this in the settings when I was running it locally. It does something like adds a pattern that is easy to detect with machines but impossible to see. The idea was that you could check an image for it before putting it into training sets. Because I never needed to lie about things I generated I left it on.

  • Jin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    China, oh you Remembering something about go green and bla bla, but continue to create coal plants.

    The Chinese government has been caught using AI for propaganda and claiming to be real. So I don’t see it happening within the Chinese government etc.

  • Magister@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Me: “hé <AI name> remove the small text which is at the bottom right in this picture”

    AI: “Done, here is the picture cleaned of the text”

  • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Will be interesting to see how they actually plan on controlling this. It seems unenforceable to me as long as people can generate images locally.

    • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

      • msage@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        17 hours ago

        It’s not like this wasn’t always the issue.

        Anything and everything can be labelled as misinformation.

  • puppinstuff@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Having some AIs that do this and some not will only muddy the waters of what’s believable. We’ll get gullible people seeing the ridiculous and thinking “Well there’s no watermark so it MUST be true.”

    • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Sorry but the problem right now is much simpler. Gullibility doesn’t require some logical premise. “It sounds right so it MUST be true” is where the thought process ends.

  • Lexam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is a bad idea. It creates a stigma and bias against innocent Artificial beings. This is the equivalent of forcing a human to wear a collar. TM watermark

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Would it be more effective to have something where cameras digitally sign the photos? Then, it also makes photos more attributable, which sounds like China’s thing.

    • conicalscientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      This is the one area where blockchain could have been useful instead of greater-fool money schemes. A system where people can verify provenance of images or videos pertaining to matters of importance such as news stories. All reputable journalism already attributes their photos anyways. Cryptographic signing is just taking it to a logical conclusion. But of course the scary word ‘china’ is involved here therefore we must only contrarian post.

      • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          Stripping C2PA simply removes the reliability part, which is fine if you don’t need it. It is something that is effective when present and not when it isn’t.

          • General_Effort@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 hours ago

            It’s never effective. At best, you could make the argument that a certain person lacks the wherewithal to have manipulated a signature, or gotten someone else to do it. One has to hope that the marketing BS does not convince courts to assign undue weight to forged evidence.

    • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      No, I don’t want my photos digitally signed and tracked, and I’m sure no whistleblower wants that either.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Of course not. Why would they? I don’t want that either. But we are considering the actions of an authoritarian system.

        Individual privacy isn’t relevant in such a country. However, it’s an interesting choice that they implement it this way.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Apart from the privacy issues, I guess the challenge would be how you preserve the signature through ordinary editing. You could embed the unedited, signed photo into the edited one, but you’d need new formats and it would make the files huge. Or maybe you could deposit the original to some public and unalterable storage using something like a blockchain, but it would bring large storage and processing requirements. Or you could have the editing software apply a digital signature to track the provenance of an edit, but then anyone could make a signed edit and it wouldn’t prove anything about the veracity of the photo’s content.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Hm, that’s true there’s no way to distinguish between editing software and photos that have been completely generated. It only helps if you want to preserve unmodified photos. And of course, I’m making assumptions here that China doesn’t care very much about privacy.