Found it first here - https://mastodon.social/@BonehouseWasps/111692479718694120
Not sure if this is the right community to discuss here in Lemmy?
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
625 points (93.5% liked)
Technology
59627 readers
2911 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just wanted to point out that the Pinterest examples are conflating two distinct issues: low-quality results polluting our searches (in that they are visibly AI-generated) and images that are not "true" but very convincing,
The first one (search results quality) should theoretically be Google's main job, except that they've never been great at it with images. Better quality results should get closer to the top as the algorithm and some manual editing do their job; crappy images (including bad AI ones) should move towards the bottom.
The latter issue ("reality" of the result) is the one I find more concerning. As AI-generated results get better and harder to tell from reality, how would we know that the search results for anything isn't a convincing spoof just coughed up by an AI? But I'm not sure this is a search-engine or even an Internet-specific issue. The internet is clearly more efficient in spreading information quickly, but any video seen on TV or image quoted in a scientific article has to be viewed much more skeptically now.
Provenance. Track the origin.
Provenance. Track the origin.Easy to say, often difficult to do.
There can be 2 major difficulties with tracking to origin.
So it appears at this point in time, there is no simple solution like "provenance" and " find the origin".
Humans will need to use digital signatures eventually. Chains of verifiable claims from real humans would be used. Still doesn't prove anything by itself, but it saves a ton of effort. That, plus verifiable timestamping.
One of the bright lines between Existing Art and AI Art, particularly when it comes to historical photos and other images, is that there typically isn't a physical copy of the original. You're not going to walk into the Louvre and have this problem.
This brings up another complication in the art world, which is ownership/right-to-reproduce said image. Blindly crawling the internet and vacuuming up whatever you find, then labeling it as you find it, has been a great way for search engines to become functional repositories of intellectual property without being exposed to the costs associated with reprinting and reproducing. But all of this is happening in a kind-of digital gray marketplace. If you want the official copy of a particular artwork to host for your audience, that's likely going to come with financial and legal strings attached, making its inclusion in a search result more complicated.
Since Google leadership doesn't want to petition every single original art owner and private exhibition for the rights to use their workers in its search engine, they're going to prefer to blindly collect shitty knock-offs and let the end-users figure this shit out (after all, you're not paying them for these results and they're not going to fork out money to someone else, so fuck you both). Then, maybe if the outcry is great enough, they can charge you as a premium service to get more authentic results. Or they can charge some third party to promote their print-copies and drive traffic.
But there's no profit motive for artistic historical accuracy. So this work isn't going to get done.