Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

no i think that sentence means you can still use photoshop manually to laboriously edit stuff… but the super convenient AI editing will fail, meaning 99,9% of the population won‘t be able to create deepfakes


That's exactly what I meant.

Watermarking can be used to find portions of the photo that have been tampered with.

It is actually pretty simple. And using AI for this is pretty stupid in my opinion.

You just disperse a little bit of additional signal in the photo, maybe divide it into lots of blocks (they don't need to be rectangles and they can overlap). Think of it as every small piece of the photo having its own signature embedded.

If you don't know how the signature was embedded or what key was used for it, you are going to disturb the signature and your editing attempt will be foiled. Not only that, but you will be able to tell which parts of the picture were touched and how so you can tell whether the picture was just cropped, brightness changed, or something else happened to it.

As you see, no need for AI...


Sounds like something a simple gaussian blur would destroy


The remaining 0.1 % happen to be the ones that matter. It helps no-one to eliminate all but state actors from creating deep fakes.


Yep, that's pretty sad conclusion to this.

Actually, it is probably even worse than having deepfakes proliferated. In this case people would expect the photos could have been manipulated. On the other hand if only handful of players can do this it can be used with much more impact.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: