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

625

AI-generated images now appearing in Google image search results (lemmy.ml)

submitted 10 months ago by heyfrancis@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world

155 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Found it first here - https://mastodon.social/@BonehouseWasps/111692479718694120

Not sure if this is the right community to discuss here in Lemmy?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] andallthat@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 5 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Provenance. Track the origin.

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Provenance. Track the origin.

Easy to say, often difficult to do.

There can be 2 major difficulties with tracking to origin.

Time. It can take a good amount of time to find the true origin of something. And you don't have the time to trace back to the true origin of everything you see and hear. So you will tend to choose the "source" you most agree with introducing bias to your "origin".
And the question of "Is the 'origin' I found the real source?" This is sometimes referred to Facts by Common Knowledge or the Wikipedia effect. And as AI gets better and better, original source material is going to become harder to access and harder to verify unless you can lay your hands on a real piece of paper that says it's so.

So it appears at this point in time, there is no simple solution like "provenance" and " find the origin".

[–] Natanael@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)