• stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I’ve said this since day one - we need a reliable way to identify AI generated content

    If we fail to separate the two, or create safeguards like this, we’re in a lot more trouble than the destruction of the job market would be. And that’s saying something.

    “Put it back in the box” isn’t a solution.

    Banning the technology isn’t a solution.

    We must face it for what it is, put our heads together, and create the solution.

    Like we always have.

    • SomeGuy69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      If you ever create a reliable tool to identify AI images, you automatically provide learning data for AI to generate images that get past the AI detection.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Unfortunately, an arms race has begun.

      Said tool could be used to train new ai to avoid it.

    • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      You don’t understand that tech; when making an AI model, you do code both a generator of whatever it is you want to make, as well as a “detector” which tells you whether or not the result is convincing.

      Then you change the genertor slightly based of the results of the “detector”

      You do that a few million times and then you have a correct AI model, the quality of which is dependant on both the quantity of training and the “detector”.

      If someone comes up with a really strong “detector”, they will do work as intended for a few days/weeks, and then AIs will come on the market which will be able to fool the detector

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        If trained and written several different kinds of AI including neural nets and LLMs.

        This isn’t even close to how LLMs work, let alone how AI works.

        You’re literally describing how to overfit model data which is the exact opposite of what you want to do.

        Do everyone else a favor next time and don’t try to armchair.

        • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t know which kinds of AIs you’ve worked on but my description (although using the incorrect terms) is certainly valid. I’ve described how GANs work, I’m not pulling this out of thin air 🤷‍♂️

          The generative network generates candidates while the discriminative network evaluates them. The contest operates in terms of data distributions. Typically, the generative network learns to map from a latent space to a data distribution of interest, while the discriminative network distinguishes candidates produced by the generator from the true data distribution. The generative network’s training objective is to increase the error rate of the discriminative network (i.e., “fool” the discriminator network by producing novel candidates that the discriminator thinks are not synthesized (are part of the true data distribution)).

          Wikipedia

          So yes, whichever method you design which allows the product of an AI to be detected can be used by a discriminative network for a GAN, which defeats the purpose of designing the method to begin with

          • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Apologies for the ignorant comment, while GANs have lost popularity in favor of Diffusion models, they’re still used more or less.

            Been having a really shit day and I took it out on you - that wasn’t fair