Each of these reads like an extremely horny and angry man yelling their basest desires at Pornhub’s search function.

  • ArbitraryValue
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    Once the ability to make photo-realistic images like that becomes commonplace, those images won’t be evidence of anything anymore. Now I can tell you a story about how I had sex with a celebrity, and you won’t believe me because you know I easily could have made it all up. In the future I will be able to show you a 100% realistic video of me having sex with a celebrity, and you won’t believe me because you’ll know that I easily could have made it all up.

    • Savaran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The obvious thing is that at some point any camera worth it’s salt will have a nice embedded key that it signs it’s output traceable to a vendor’s CA at the least. No signature, the image would be considered fake.

      • tal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I think that there may be something like that – the ability to prove things with a camera is useful – but it’s gonna be more-complicated than just that. It’s consumer hardware. If you just do that, someone is gonna figure out how to extract the keys on at least one model and then you can forge authenticated images with it.

      • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        As a programmer, I gotta say, that’s probably not technically feasible in a sensible way.

        Every camera has got to have an embedded key, and if any one of them leaks, the system becomes worthless.

        • Turun@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, that would actually be feasible with enough effort.

          The real question is what do you do if someone takes a screenshot of that image? Since the picture must be in a format that can be shown, nothing is stopping people from writing software that just strips the authentication from the camera file.

          Edit: misread the problem. You need to get a private key to make forgeries and be able to say “no look, this was taken with a camera”. Stripping the signature from photographs is the opposite of what we want here.

          • Savaran@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The point is, without the signature then there’s plausible deniability that it wasn’t real. If you want to prove something happened, then it should have a signature and be validated.

            If someone is showing off a screenshot of an image then in the future (now really) one probably needs to assume it’s fake unless there’s some overriding proof otherwise.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It will kill celebrity rather than be a constant issue about stealing images.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good. Fame is overrated, anyway. Let’s praise the era where no one person is completely dominating the cultural zeitgeist, and people are talking about their own indie discoveries they found, that algorithms and bots recommended them.

        Shit, Spotify’s discovery systems are so good that we’re almost there with the music industry.