hckrnws
Remove-AI-Watermarks – CLI and library for removing AI watermarks from images
(github.com)
384
257
by janalsncm
by janalsncm
Much like how the entirety of Hollywood, book publishers, academic publishers, and game developers have won against piracy despite being some of the largest corps on earth and dedicating untold billions to the issue over the past 30 years?
Without truth freedom and privacy are endangered too.
The other comment talks about laws that can already handle that. How if images, video and audio aren’t reliable proof anymore?
[dead]
I'm not entirely sure how hiding that something is GenAI fits in here. It surely doesn't have anything to do with Privacy though.
I think ethical considerations were always a bit secondary to technical power when it came to so called "hacker ethos".
After all, instructions on how to remove watermarks definitely feels like the sort of thing that would have been in phrack back in the day.
but I also live in a society that requires trust to function. making a tool the obliterates that trust(genAI imagery pipelines) then creating a tool that makes it trivial for normal people to remove any hint of controls over said trust eroding system is, toxic.
I get the argument about not putting in fingerprints that identify users, Good I agree. But this also removes the things that identify this as an AI image.
Now, what are the legitimate uses of that?
No really, why would I _need_ to remove a watermark for _legitimate_ purposes? Assuming that watermark is generic, rather than a fingerprint of a specific person
ie the video of garbage being thrown out the windows that his team already confirmed was real:
https://www.kptv.com/2025/09/03/trump-says-video-showing-ite...
Also the Lincoln Project video footage him him stumbling while walking and over his words: https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/12/04/donald-tru...
Sorry, how does using AI to generate images have anything to do with this? Image generators cannot insert watermarks into things they did not generate, and it seems highly unlikely that you will get a false-positive watermark on human-generated art, especially if, as the readme says, these watermarks have high enough fidelity to trace to a specific session id. Plus the modifications to the image needed to erase watermarks would necessarily change the thing being "preserved."
[edit]: the more I read the more I'm convinced, the claimed use cases in the README are bullshit and the real reason is to provide a tool that helps people bypass "AI-generated" labels on social media for AI slop.
I'd be more interested in some kind of trusted Non-AI watermark.
This is something that could get integrated into cameras for example. However, considering how much AI-processing we already have in "normal" photos, it will be difficult to decide where to draw the line.
Trust should be between people, not a person and some data.
So showing how easy to generate "false" data, this makes it more obvious for people focus on other people. Trusting people makes life much easier in my experience, while focusing on data, again in my experience, is a game of cat and mouse.
We need to get to a place where we're checking digital signatures to see which humans were involved in the creation of something, and ignoring everything else.
People want to dismiss the potential harms of deepfakes while also excitedly releasing the deepfake-hider-3000 and saying they just really, really care about privacy (for people who make deepfakes).
The takeaway should be that watermarks aren't very reliable and you should keep your guard up anyway.
putting cyphertext in high frequency noise is old news. in generative land would be far more interesting to use the generative flexibility to encode in macrostructure.
[deleted]
I don't think we've even seen the full brutal force of disinformation that we are capable of yet.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
Then they ask us to do it by hand?!
- Rocky
I think this is largely an incorrect take. DRM is anti consumer, not anti piracy. In fact, it has done very little to deter actual piracy (and remember it only takes ONE person to break the DRM), while affecting some casual pirates and all legitimate users. In the process, they got rid of reselling stuff you own.
It's anticonsumer, not antipiracy, never forget that. It means something like this would have happened regardless of pirates.
They've got some sort of hypervisor bypass for basically all Denuvo games.
But, they are greedy above all else. And so, we are once again seeing a resurgence of piracy. Large corporations seem to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Hobbyists do not. ROI is not a factor.
Legalize recreational plutonium.
Unless we're only considering final assembly. Just gotta get that weapons grade fissile material supplier lined up. That might or might not qualify as rich hobbyist territory depending on how high a price tag is permissible.
Losing to piracy would see companies like Netflix and Spotify not thriving.
By which definition they utterly failed.
> Losing to piracy would see companies like Netflix and Spotify not thriving.
Not at all. Netflix and Spotify do well because they are a good value proposition for the average customer. Piracy is free at point of "purchase" but is (and always has been) expensive in terms of various sorts of overhead.
I for one do not enjoy the “Which service has the classic film I wanted to watch this week?” Nor having to switch services every time I want to see a new TV series.
We need (and have!) similar “free” alternatives to the watermarked generative services. Just like I hate the yellow dots on my printed images, I am not happy to have my creative assets (I do nothing nefarious) stained with SynthID.
But this is moving the goalposts. You can win against piracy either by making piracy less attractive or by making the paid offering more attractive. The first has utterly failed, piracy remains easy as a rule, and to the extent that they've succeeded it's not only disproportionately by doing the second thing, the DRM itself is a net negative because it has such a small effect on the ease of piracy while making the paid offering worse.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't really see it. I think it's important to win on both fronts.
> works for Google
Gee, I wonder why...
[dead]
[dead]
A knife and a handgun aren’t comparable to a machine gun and a bomb. When you have equal access to all of those, the damage you can enact is exponentiated.
You could lie with text before, but it took effort and time and skill to do it convincingly. You could also lie with images but they took even more time and effort and skill, greatly limiting the pool of people who could do it and the possible damage.
When anyone anywhere can convincingly lie and have it do two laps around the world in a matter of minutes, the whole game changes.
It’s becoming very hard to believe that people making arguments like yours are doing so in good faith. Maybe you’re not even a person but a shill bot. That’s a very real and trivial possibility today, which is the whole point and illustrates the problem.
[dead]
Edit: Removed swipes while keeping the core argument.
The photo could be staged (e.g. Cottingley Fairies), it could be altered physically (like cutting or painting over, e.g. Stalin), it could be cropped intentionally to tell a different story (plenty of examples), and more recently it could be photoshopped, etc. All of these were possible, though harder than it is now, but let's not pretend we didn't "trust pixels". We all did, just as we trusted newspaper photographs. Now that era must come to a firm end, and I believe it's a tragedy.
- Watermarks are optional by AI provider so bad actors will circumvent by using another provider
- GH project proves watermarks can be removed
Given these, trying to ensure "truth" is a futile effort unfortunately, and watermarking only gives companies advantage to violate privacy
[deleted]
[deleted]
Now Nancy, a tech-phobic waitress who has a grudge against her coworker can make up an entire scenario with one prompt and her colleagues might blindly believe her.
Let's not pretend they're the same thing.
Gen AI is inevitable. Watermarking is likely futile. But in my opinion it is still very important to discuss how, as a society, we're going to live in a post-truth world now that anybody can, IN SECONDS, not only fabricate a story but also spread it to thousands of people through their social media.
Do you want to make it easier for the next Stalin?
We already have the problem of people blindly trusting shit they read on the Internet.
Also note that people have been falling for obviously watermarked videos already.
And even if they weren't, wouldn't that just make them more gullible towards non-watermarked models?
[deleted]
[dead]
Probably it's worth reminding of also considering we're on HN here... ;)
> Hackers believe that essential lessons can be learned about the systems—about the world—from taking things apart, seeing how they work, and using this knowledge to create new and more interesting things.
> Access to computers—and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works—should be unlimited and total.
> Mistrust authority—promote decentralization
> All information should be free
I phrased it a bit differently, and perhaps a little less sympathetically, but i think i was more or less saying the same thing.
In any case a tool like the article that strips watermarks seems exactly the sort of thing that would fit into what i quoted above. Its mistrusting authority - there is nothing more central authority then having a literal central authority adding hard to remove digital signatures to images. It promotes freedom of information - it supports explaining how watermarks work and what they are. Its fundamentally taking apart a system, which teaches us how the system works.
[deleted]
When removing the watermark is easy, a very legitimate purpose of making the code to do it publicly available is to make a public demonstration that it's easy to do.
As for content use cases, suppose someone is using AI to modify their appearance because they're being unjustly targeted by an oppressive government. That government naturally bans doing that because they want to be able to identify and arrest their critics, so now if you make videos with your real face you get arrested but if you use a generated avatar then the watermark enables automated censorship because the government orders anything with the watermark to have its reach automatically restricted.
Then use a mask like everyone else. digital mask, one that obscures.
which is my main point, no, there isn't a legitimate need.
realtime avatars don't generally have invisible watermarks, also they are running from your machine, otherwise you've got a (normally credit card) trail to your front door. plus a video stream
also if you are generating stuff from a public provider, then tracing people isn't that hard to do.
There are no reliable tools for the end user, normal person, to work out if an image is AI or not. This erodes trust and lets bad actors get away with "oh thats AI generated" or use AI to defraud users.
It's like making your image editing software watermark every image it edits in case someone photoshops a picture to show something that didn't happen. What's the point when anyone trying to fool people will always have access to ones that don't do that?
It's not a matter of whether there are alternatives. If you can produce one without a watermark, and having the watermark allows the bad guys to cause trouble for you, then you have a legitimate reason to produce one without a watermark.
Wearing a mask also has different trade offs. A filter can change the shape of your face while continuing to allow you to show facial expressions.
> realtime avatars don't generally have invisible watermarks, also they are running from your machine, otherwise you've got a (normally credit card) trail to your front door.
"You don't have to remove the watermark because it didn't have one to begin with" isn't a way out. If anyone can create a video of themselves looking like $TARGET and saying despicable things without a watermark then you can't trust that a video without a watermark is real and the watermarks are pointless. Whereas if they're all supposed to have watermarks then you can't use the excuse that the video shouldn't have one to need removing.
> also if you are generating stuff from a public provider, then tracing people isn't that hard to do.
Only if the provider is subject to the jurisdiction/control of the user's oppressors.
It just defaults to 1K. But I didn't see anything in the docs stating that it's just a simple upscale for larger resolutions.
https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/image-generation#gener...
> Produce production-ready assets with native 1K output and built-in upscaling to 2K and 4K resolutions
The API doc you linked is misleading.
$0.067 per 1K image*, $0.101 per 2K image*, and $0.151 per 4K image*.
Qwen-Image-2512 / Z-Image / Flux.2 absolutely crush SDXL if you're actually generating moderately complex scenes.
If you're on a Mac, I've heard that Draw Things is supposed to be pretty "batteries included" simple for image gen along the same lines as LM Studio.
https://github.com/Haoming02/sd-webui-forge-classic/tree/neo
> Image generators cannot insert watermarks into things they did not generate
It's actually very easy to take a real image, ask Gemini/ChatGPT to modify some tiny part of it (could be something as silly as lighting/shadow/etc), and often the resulting image will be detected by their watermarking tools. This way you can easily present any real image as AI-generated.
If you take a photograph that is misidentified as AI generated, you can “preserve the historical record“ by using this tool before publishing the image.
(Anyone know the false positive rate with watermark IDs, would’ve hoped it’s like zero)
But then again, the photo itself would be authentic in this case strictly speaking.
It's not an easy problem. If I had a good solution, I would have tried to monetize it already ;)
Sure, but how do you apply that to a society at large where powerful people are interested in making everybody distrust all reliable sources of information?
AI watermarks are no panacea, but at least they are a clear signal of what not to trust.
You can’t, it’s an inherent contradiction. Human social structures have sophisticated and robust evolved mechanisms for establishing and maintaining trust. These dynamics are not one option among many, they are the optimum. By their definition they don’t scale to strangers around the planet. This is an immutable factor in why we have spam, bank fraud, etc. We want the benefits of trust without the cost of local constraints but wishing doesn’t make it so.
Isn't that the scenario the watermarks are useless against? Adversarial governments or anyone with enough money will be the ones who can generate images without watermarks even if you force them on the proles.
> AI watermarks are no panacea, but at least they are a clear signal of what not to trust.
Which seems like it only makes the actual problem worse? If most of them have watermarks, that only encourages people to put more trust in the ones that don't, even though those are the ones "powerful people" can still forge to manipulate everyone. What good is something that increases the credibility of adversarial government forgeries?
Only people with resources will be allowed to make content that is AI generated passed off as real.
Pandora's box is open. Instead of making a multi-tiered privileged society, we need to fundamentally restructure society to adapt.
Before that restructuring occurs it is critical to keep the playing field level. These are not tools that should be controlled by a minority authority, they are far too dangerous.
If I got a picture of my mom being held hostage it sure would be nice to have a watermark confirming in was an AI generated image. So again, why make this broadly an easily removable?
We now have the tools to increase trust in specific information, for example: by signing images that need high trust for things like news reporting using camera hardware root of trust with time and geo stamping. If signatures are removed, that's back to a default low-trust state.
That is how we ended up with the situation where "reputed" media organizations peddle daily lies or selective truths that are useful to their benefactors.
Making untraceable assets means parties can’t be held liable for harms.
Just because a bad actor might poison a toddler doesn’t mean you should sell them the arsenic.
Just because the effects of arsenic on the neurons of a brain are interesting means you should feed them to a toddler and watch the effects unfold.
I support the legal freedom to pursue any idea, but we should also mentor our colleagues about the consequences of our projects and avoid unnecessary harm.
Further, an ikea knife used in a crime can be traced back to the criminal through other evidence like finger prints, surveillance cameras, purchase receipts etc.
Arguments that have a emotional component, especially related to our evolutionary instinct to take care of kids has a way of avoiding the rationalizations people adopt to justify otherwise indefensible behavior.
You also dont do yourself any favors in a bad argument that lumps me in with some unknown group of people rather tan responding to my argument.
It's too late already. We live in a post-trust society now.
Preserving the illusion that that assumption is still useful only helps the people who are exploiting it.
That said, this tool is incredibly lossy, garbling text, completely changing shapes. It also fails to remove the new gemini spark / placement that moved since yesterday.
would you say the same thing about a ROT13 breaker, or would you recognize how laughably naive that sounds?
AI generated images have never existed before, they will break our ability to use the digital tools we have built society on if we let them. Ensuring they can be identified and have attribution tracing data embedded is a reasonable step to prevent abuse.
I know of at least one music GenAI service whose ToS forbid me from using their productions in ways that are incompatible with my local rights. If Google decides, as they did with YouTube, that they'll enforce this company's watermark even though I have a right to use their results then I've passively accepted that a (foreign) company decides which of my legal rights I can exercise.
For a more pessimistic outlook: for the GenAI companies that work for the military, are those pictures also watermarked? Because if watermarks only apply to one group then the "implicit trust" argument doesn't work.
I'm in favor of watermarking the same way I am in favor of paying artists for their work. But just as with youtube-dl and DVD decryption libraries, tools like these are necessary to level the playing field.
It’s kind like if I took a picture off of your facebook with your keychain, and used it to make a copy of your house key. You’d probably prefer I reached out and told you to take down the picture instead of creating a template of the key for anyone to download and make a copy along with your home address.
[dead]
for example, 35 years ago PGP was a "casually malevolent" thing, enabling terrorists and pedophiles to email each other with impunity. the effort to make math illegal had (very predictably) failed and now we have encryption everywhere. did the world end? how do you feel about Chat Control and numerous other initiatives to roll it all back?
This is a very specific tool with the purpose of making it easier to lie, in an area where the kinds of lies people tell are directly injurious to society. "It's just math" doesn't fly here, and all the primary uses for such a tool are malevolent.
as for the rest of it: would banning a tool that breaks ROT13 make ROT13-encrypted communications safe?
ROT13 decryption does not have the same issues, and is not a good parallel here. Again, we're talking about a specific tool with specific use cases; a general algorithm being able to be used for negative ends is not the same as a tool being designed to be used for negative ends.
I also haven't mentioned banning anything; that's all on you. It really feels like you've jumped in with pre-prepared talking points rather than engaging with my comments.
To restate: "AI will benefit humanity" is a tough sell when so many people who are in to AI deliberately make tools that support the negative uses. This is an example of a project that superficially presents as high-minded, but is designed for exploitation.
You’re trying to prove a negative.
No, there's no law requiring disclosure of AI use yet, as far as I know.
> pretending you're not American when asked
Many people do so for various reasons, for example saying you're Canadian when on vacation. Do you count that as evidence that they're "ashamed" of being american? Or that being american is automatically a bad thing, because sometimes people hide it?
https://futurism.com/artificial-intelligence/real-monet-ai-c...
I think so, because their main goal is to prevent unwanted use of the digital product -- to the detriment of end users -- in more ways than just piracy. In fact, they don't solve the piracy issue.
My argument is that the grant of monopoly is a regulatory decision and the real cause of "winning". No amount of DRM would confer the same benefit because the ability to bypass it through piracy would be totally legal with no economic or other consequences and so a robust cracking and distribution ecosystem would emerge. Thats a drastically different story than when napster gets shut down, and limewire gets shut down and pirate bay gets shut down every time it relaunches. Imagine a world where there is are 1000 pirate bays
[deleted]
[dead]
This subthread starts off with the argument that the big corps will never beat the little determined hackers, one of the founding myths of the early internet. And then every now and then a strong little branch of the argument runs up against an example and it becomes well sure, the little hobbyist hackers don't have anything there but that is because the big corps/gov/billionaires/whatever put so much into beating them.
I mean reading it all certainly sounds like the people on the little guy's side are overestimating the value of pluck, an observation Hollywood generally makes just before the heroes with pluck win for ever!
It's almost never about the level of resources the organization puts in. The usual reason is that there isn't enough incentive to do it. What is a hobbyist going to do with a nuclear weapon? Why spend your time creating one if you, like the overwhelming majority of people, have no desire to blow up a city?
Preventing something that hardly anybody would be trying to do even if it wasn't being suppressed is a lot more practical than preventing something millions of people would do given the chance.
> Label them as irredeemable liars so you can do as you please.
Do you not see the irony?
I disagree with the irony point on the basis that none of us here (I assume) is a despot or in a position of power high enough to lie to the point of discrediting entire institutions to the masses. We can be victims of it, but not perpetrators. Also, nowhere have I accused anyone in particular of being a liar. Still, given that my ill chosen words will have no doubt clouded your understanding of the point—which is on me—I won’t hold that against you, I take responsibility.
Now that anyone can manufacture convincing images out of whole cloth, it becomes impossible for the typical user to determine if what they're seeing is legitimate; this means not only that people can manufacture images to push a false narrative but also discredit legitimate images as falsified.
The 'mainstream media is bad' narrative is one manufactured almost entirely by right-wing influencers and politicians to create an environment where they can discredit any actual evidence that doesn't align with what they or their base want to hear. Once anyone with integrity is inherently suspicious, the narrative can be set by anyone to push their agenda, and because they've demonized actual news reporting they can point to any other outlet that counters their claims and say 'look, they're lying to your face, you can't trust them!'
> the main thing is tracking, ID verification, constant social credit-like ratings, etc. That's what is coming.
Do you mean things like masked armed federal agents demanding to see your proof of citizenship or they'll lock you up (or sometimes just locking you up anyway)? Is that what's coming? Is that what you're afraid of? Or is that fine if it only happens to people you don't agree with?
These talking points, as always, are fearmongering designed to trigger paranoia in people so that they'll go along with whatever the people in charge say will fix things. No one on the left has proposed any of these things, but people on the right are constantly saying that's whats coming because it's what helps them keep their base frightened and compliant, and you've fallen for it (or are part of it, I don't know).
[deleted]
It can be both things.
I worry about tracking and the post-truth world of everything fake and AI slop infiltrating everything. And like the person you're arguing with is saying, just because slop/fakery was possible before doesn't mean the widespread scale that AI and the internet have unlocked is of no concern.
You know what would be a good counter to that? Don't use AI generation tools if they implement that. The argument that 'we should let AI generated media be indistinguishable from the truth because what if Google does something you don't like at some point' is pretty flimsy.
[dead]
If you want to discredit an imagine, upload a slightly ai-edited copy of it.
"Don't trust what you see on the Internet. Trust instead what you read in a reputable daily newspaper, or Peter Jennings or Tom Brokaw on the nightly news, or BBC World News."
Today, the Internet, especially the part which is not trustable, has nearly finished killing most of the "trustworthy" news sources, by outcompeting them for ad dollars - by being way better at targeting ads (e.g. Meta) and by scientifically perfecting addiction (e.g. TikTok). What remains is mostly controlled by governments and has far from a perfect record of being fact-based and impartial.[1] There are a ton of independent people out there in good faith posting facts on the Internet, but we just agreed that we shouldn't trust what we see on the Internet.
So doesn't this become "Don't trust anything"? And doesn't that, in practice, get implemented as "Don't trust anything that challenges what you believe to be true"? This feels like a really, really bad change to our society - and I'd argue it's already completely happened.
[1] https://apnews.com/article/bbc-gaza-documentary-hamas-sancti...
[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/695762/trust-media-new-low.aspx
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control...
Effective democracy requires an informed voter base. Society requires its constituents to be invested in its continuity. Neither of those is achievable when we completely discard trust.
AI kind of makes this worse, but also only barely. Because most people really ought to know by now that almost any content could be AI, a video of, say, Trump kicking a baby or violating a goat wouldn't convince anyone that those acts happened (unless they already believed they happened).
Thing is, we're so flooded in biased BS, and no one has any incentive to produce non-sensational, factual news. I absolutely see 'post-truth' as the inevitability. You can't "weed a garden" when it is 100% weeds. The term "news" will cease to mean facts, and just become a branch of entertainment. Kind of the way "Reality TV" went from being supposedly a documentary (e.g. COPS) to just being a flavor of entertainment, where nothing needs to be real.
This sort of solution to the fake image problem, makes it easier for stalin not harder. If everyone can make fake images that is one thing. If only the dictator can, well that is much worse.
In reality, all images will cease to be trustworthy and there's nothing that can be done about this.
Drugs are banned, they still exist. Many torrents flourish (that violate copyright laws), humans can't seem to stop those.
Generative AI has too much commercial utility to ever be "snatched back" at this point through legislative means.
> It's kind of a big problem for the future of the justice system and politics.
People will adapt, but this "big problem" is going nowhere.
That being said, I’ll make a counter argument. To the extent that deep fakes need to be so wide spread that everyone becomes skeptical and there is no other way to trigger broad diligence then maybe there is a case to be made. But I am concerned that this will be worse than a more broadly trusted image environment
Poisons are widely available to everyone. People commonly have liters of them under their kitchen sink or in their garage. Many of them are also simple compounds that anyone can make, e.g. "cyanide" is just CN (carbon and nitrogen) typically attached to H, Na or K. Every one of those elements is required for human life, but combining them in specific ratios under well-known conditions creates a deadly poison. It's so simple to do that hobbyist chemists have to be careful not to create it by accident.
> But I am concerned that this will be worse than a more broadly trusted image environment
There are two different metrics of trust here.
The first is, should you trust an unauthenticated image you see on the internet? Now more than ever before, the answer to that question is no. Watermarks can't fix that because the people you least want to be trusting are the ones who can still forge images without any watermarks. You can't undo this by putting watermarks on other images.
The second is, do people trust random images from strangers on the internet? The ostensible purpose of doing watermarks is to get more people to do that. But when the answer to the first question is no, getting more people to do that is bad, because you're encouraging people to trust something that is not trustworthy.
What you want is for undetectable forgeries to be difficult/impossible in general, e.g. to have something that can tell anyone if an image is machine-generated regardless of whether the machine added a watermark. But watermarks don't give you that since they don't all add them or can feasibly be removed, and a generic algorithm that can detect even novel/unknown image generation methods may not even be possible.
“ Every one of those elements is required for human life, but combining them in specific ratios under well-known conditions creates a deadly poison. It's so simple to do that hobbyist chemists have to be careful not to create it by accident.”
The only ones, then, who could afford to break the law are also the ones who make the law and own the law. Everyone else is subordinate in that model.
That's why technology like watermarking doesn't work and will never work. Implicitly it creates a minimum of a two-tiered society and no amount of "law" will change the technological reality of this.
Now the things they produce can be done in a fraction of the time without any of the stakes, nor any of the moral society-integrating foundational encoding.
Instead, a single billionaire with an army of GPUs can ask for a thing, and that thing will be produced near instantaneously.
The old way of regulating depended on PEOPLE creating things at PEOPLE speeds in order for the laws to work. That simply is not the case any more.
All watermarks are cures that are worse than the diseases they are trying to prevent (and never achieved to even cure anything).
Watermark is a blatant violation of legitimate privacy expectations, while not preventing anything because they can be easily removed.
So all the honest usages are punished, while illegitimate ones are not caught.
I am with you on opposing a watermark that identifies a person.
I am not with you in saying all watermarks are a violation of privacy or that they result in punishment of honest use. I don’t see how those follow.
This is not a new insight, and it doesn't add anything to the discussion. It's effectively a platitude.
This project is absolutely not motivated by a wish to inform, and it's disingenuous to prevaricate around that; there are countless ways to inform that don't endorse.
for fuck's sake, Photoshop existed for how many years now? you would be a fool to trust any random photo to be genuine at any point in time. yes, yes, yes, back then only the people who had spent a few days learning it could do it, and now everyone can. that makes no difference whatsoever.
We're not talking about Photoshop, because it's not a parallel here. We're not talking about trust in authenticity. These are points you have plucked from the ether. Please reread my earlier comments.
Should people be scared of their food containing Red Dye 3? Yes. Aspartame? Maybe. MSG? Probably not. Dihydrogen Monoxide? Nope.
Should you feel "shame" for using AI to generate fake news? Yes. Art? Not really. See the numerous examples of people disliking famous human-made art just because it was presented as AI.
The hyper macho’ism on show by a large majority of pro-AI posters on other threads is frankly embarrassing and if I was trying to promote a positive spin on AI I’d be telling the bro’s to STFU.
[deleted]
As I said, it can be both things, both bad.
I have no objection to this -- I follow a few that I would say meet that definition well and which I trust. But boy do I worry that for 90% of the population, this translates to picking a bunch of enthusiastic propagandists whose bias is far worse than MSNBC, Fox News, or CNN ever were. I assume our craven and corrupt political parties will increasingly focus on propping up "independent journalists" who repeat their talking points for them.
Which independent journalists do you like?