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
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    16 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. Labeling generated content at the source, hopefully without the metadata being too extensive (this is where China might go off the handle) would help avoid at least two things:

    • casual deception
    • training AI with material generated by another AI, leading to degradation of ability to generate realistic content
    • blurryface@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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
    15
    ·
    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.

  • some_dude@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is a smart and ethical way to include AI into everyday use, though I hope the watermarks are not easily removed.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      I’m going to develop a new AI designed to remove watermarks from AI generated content. I’m still looking for investors if you’re interested! You could get in on the ground floor!

    • jonne
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      It will be relatively easy to strip that stuff off. It might help a little bit with internet searches or whatever, but anyone spreading deepfakes will probably not be stopped by that. Still better than nothing, I guess.

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

        it will be relatively easy to strip off

        How so? If it’s anything like llm text based “water marks” the watermark is an integral part of the output. For an llm it’s about downrating certain words in the output, I’m guessing for photos you could do the same with certain colors, so if this variation of teal shows up more than this variation then it’s made by ai.

        I guess the difference with images is that since you’re not doing the “guess the next word” aspect and feeding the output from the previous step into the next one, you can’t generate the red green list from the previous output.

  • 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    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.

  • puppinstuff@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    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
      1
      ·
      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
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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

  • Jin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day 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
    3
    ·
    1 day 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”

  • henfredemars
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    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.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Sort of. A camera with internet connectivity could automatically “notarize” photos. The signing authority would vouch that the photo (or other file) hasn’t been altered since the moment of signing. It wouldn’t be evidence that the photo was not manipulated before that moment.

      That could make, EG, photos of a traffic accident good evidence in court. If there wasn’t time to for manipulation, then the photos must be real. It wouldn’t work for photos that could have been taken at any time.

      You could upload a hash to the blockchain of a cryptocurrency for the same purpose. The integrity of the cryptocurrency would then vouch that the photo was unaltered since the upload. But that’s not cost-effective. You could even upload the hash to Reddit, since it’s not believable that they would manipulate timestamps to help some random guy somewhere in the world commit fraud.

    • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

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

      • henfredemars
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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.

    • conicalscientist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        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.