Adobe is trying for the opposite. Content authenticity with digital signatures to show something is not AI (been having conversations with them on this).
Oh I’m sure Adobe has the greatest of intentions on this. Such a reputable company that has a stellar past.
I’m sure they won’t gatekeep this digital human signature in some atrocious proprietary standard along with an expensive subscription to have the honor of using it.
Don’t listen to Adobe on AI or even better don’t accept any “idea” or solution from Adobe.
How would that work then, I presume most would just ignore it because if it only verifies you used Adobe to make something it’s pretty worthless as a “this isn’t AI” mark.
It uses cryptographic signatures in the cameras and tools. Say you take a photo with a compatible camera, it gets a signature. Then you retouch in Photoshop, it gets a another signature. And this continues through however many layers. The signature is in the file’s EXIF data, so it can be read on the web. Meaning a photo on a news site could be labeled as authentic, retouched, etc.
Edit: Doesn’t require Adobe tools. Adobe runs the services, but the method is open. There are cameras on the market today that do this when you take a picture. I beleive someone could add it to GIMP if they desired.
And being adobe, they will put a nice little backdoor in it for them to change the credentials so that they can take artists’ work and use it, train their AI with it, and sell it like they have been doing for years.
Very nice idea in theory, but proving there is no AI involved in the creation of art is not something I think is remotely possible. It’s an arms race more than anything, but I’m very interested in how Adobe will tackle it. I think people will be appreciating physical art more again, but even then we could argue about the usage of AI tools.
Anyhow, people will have to come to terms with the fact that AI is here to stay, and will only get better too.
My other reply talks about how this works with cryptographic signatures, but sure, people can lie. The key to this method is if there is a signature from a reputable artist, news org, or photographer, then that origin can’t be forged. So it’s about proving the authenticity (origin) vs the negative use of AI.
Adobe is trying for the opposite. Content authenticity with digital signatures to show something is not AI (been having conversations with them on this).
Oh I’m sure Adobe has the greatest of intentions on this. Such a reputable company that has a stellar past.
I’m sure they won’t gatekeep this digital human signature in some atrocious proprietary standard along with an expensive subscription to have the honor of using it.
Don’t listen to Adobe on AI or even better don’t accept any “idea” or solution from Adobe.
Yeah pretty much.
I recall flash, and how they absolutely controlled it. I loved flash as a young programmer too.
But in retrospect, forcing users to go through adobe to use something, with no alternatives? What a nightmare for a Open Internet.
How would that work then, I presume most would just ignore it because if it only verifies you used Adobe to make something it’s pretty worthless as a “this isn’t AI” mark.
As valid and informative as TwitteX’ blue mark.
It uses cryptographic signatures in the cameras and tools. Say you take a photo with a compatible camera, it gets a signature. Then you retouch in Photoshop, it gets a another signature. And this continues through however many layers. The signature is in the file’s EXIF data, so it can be read on the web. Meaning a photo on a news site could be labeled as authentic, retouched, etc.
Edit: Doesn’t require Adobe tools. Adobe runs the services, but the method is open. There are cameras on the market today that do this when you take a picture. I beleive someone could add it to GIMP if they desired.
And being adobe, they will put a nice little backdoor in it for them to change the credentials so that they can take artists’ work and use it, train their AI with it, and sell it like they have been doing for years.
Very nice idea in theory, but proving there is no AI involved in the creation of art is not something I think is remotely possible. It’s an arms race more than anything, but I’m very interested in how Adobe will tackle it. I think people will be appreciating physical art more again, but even then we could argue about the usage of AI tools.
Anyhow, people will have to come to terms with the fact that AI is here to stay, and will only get better too.
My other reply talks about how this works with cryptographic signatures, but sure, people can lie. The key to this method is if there is a signature from a reputable artist, news org, or photographer, then that origin can’t be forged. So it’s about proving the authenticity (origin) vs the negative use of AI.