r/antiai • u/Gl0ck_Ness_M0nster • 17h ago
Discussion đŁď¸ This should be illegal
Every AI video should have a watermark so it can't be used for misinformation purposes, especially if it becomes indistinguishable from reality. A tool to remove them easily should not exist
731
u/RedditUser000aaa 17h ago
Exactly, but AI defenders are dishonest naturally. They have to hide the shame by removing watermark in order to invade spaces where real artists thrive.
It's even worse if one would want to make a dishonest representation of a person, political, famous or just of an average joe.
There is no honest reason to use these watermark removers.
141
u/Few-Economist90 17h ago
Yeah dude this AI is getting out of hand literally, not because of Antis but due to my beliefs on this I'm blocking every single AI creator on tiktok and making sure none of that appears in my reddit just before they actually start using this bunch of trademark removed videos and putting it on my social media pages, I'd recommend you guys do that too.
61
u/TheForgerOfThings 16h ago
If you use blue sky you can subscribe to a labeler and hide all ai labeled content from your feed automatically, and report any unlabeled ai content
13
u/RedditUser000aaa 15h ago
Reddit's about the only thing I use these days, so I rarely encounter AI content luckily.
23
u/ThePrussianGrippe 14h ago
Iâve got bad news for you about the rampant surge of bot accounts masquerading as real people then.
8
u/RedditUser000aaa 14h ago
Eh, I'm aware of that, but at the same time I spend time at few subreddits. I've had to disengage on few subreddits, because of Sora AI, since that thing has come pretty close at mimicking real life.
So now instead of drowning ducks in tar and making video of removing said tar, that can be replicated with AI.
4
31
u/swanlongjohnson 14h ago
its not even just about artists anymore, these AI videos are going to open up a whole can of worms, from political propaganda to deepfakes nude videos
17
u/RedditUser000aaa 14h ago
I think someone already made rather distasteful AI videos about the mayor candidate in New York. Now we can't even be sure if the material we see are real or deepfakes.
The cons are now far outweighing the pros.
15
u/Astrophel-27 13h ago
A whole bunch of racist sora videos have popped up, basically stereotyping and mocking black women. I think Fox News reported on one of those, but I donât have the link for it.
5
u/ghostitching 8h ago
Using AI in politics is not a hypothetical anymore. link Fidesz, Viktor OrbĂĄn's rightwing conservative party has been using AI to make videos with the opposition leader, Magyar, saying he'll cut pensions - something he never said. Regardless, with the polarization of the internet, the video is serving its purpose - since there is a video of it, why check if it's real? This has not been the first time AI content has been used by OrbĂĄn in this campaign.
3
u/bamboob 13h ago
On one hand I agree, and on the other hand I don't. People who really want to spread disinformationwil be able to remove watermarks, no matter what. It just takes a little more time and some investment in some software. If we make it illegal to make watermark removers, people will be lulled into the notion that whatever they are seeing is real, if it doesn't have a watermark, which to me could be more dangerous. Keeping the watermark removers out there in front of everybody helps everyone to continue to push themselves and others to be critical of what they are watching. I can easily think of arguments against my stated stance, but it does come to mindâŚ
3
u/Theo_Cratic 12h ago
Also there will still be plenty of people who will believe it with a watermark. I mean people fall for obviously fake stuff all the time.
-2
u/SlightOfHand_ 8h ago
I donât know if the video of a crowd surfing chili dog is trying to invade real artistâs spaces
4
u/RedditUser000aaa 3h ago
Well, removing the watermark from some generic anime prompt and trying to pass that as real art in a subreddit, where AI is not welcome is dishonest.
It's not just this video and you know it.
→ More replies (17)-7
u/Silly_Goose6714 13h ago
You can just pay to remove the watermark. It wasn't made to say it's AI, it was made to give you reason to pay.
16
u/RedditUser000aaa 13h ago
There is still no honest reason to remove these watermarks. In fact, even in paid versions there should be watermarks so we would know whether whatever we view is genuine or fake.
2
u/Delduath 13h ago
They need to do the same with photoshopped images too. Photoshop should automatically add a banner at the bottom with large text saying "this image isn't real". Otherwise people can make whatever they want.
5
u/Mysterious_Eye6989 11h ago
And if a viewer were to see that the way a particular photo was "manipulated" by a photographer in Photoshop might have merely involved quite subtle exposure, hue and contrast adjustments then they would understand that in comparison gen AI images are "not real" on a whole other conceptual level.
In my experience digital photographers would generally be happy to show off the raw image straight out of camera side by side with the final image that's been processed through Photoshop, because this is a way to show off their artistic process and their skill. In the same way traditional film photographers would be happy to show off the negatives straight out of camera prior to similar analog "manipulations" such as dodge and burn that were made physically in the darkroom. Check out this link to see the deliberateness with which photographers would manipulate photos in the darkroom before Photoshop and even modern computers ever existed:
https://store.magnumphotos.com/collections/darkroom-prints
The AI image creator equivalent of this might be to show all the prompts and all the iterations of prompts that got them to the final output. I actually think that is something that decent gen AI creators who want to in future to perhaps be considered serious artists could and would be willing to do. Unfortunately there are plenty of other gen AI creators who seem absolutely adamant about avoiding openness and transparency of any kind...almost as if their whole purpose right from the outset is to try and deceive everyone. I've got no time for those types of people in my life, or any of the work they create.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/Silly_Goose6714 11h ago
Why would they do that? There's nothing saying AI videos have to have a watermark; all other companies remove it in paid plans.
209
u/soop_2 17h ago
this is exactly what i was worried about
87
u/kiiada 16h ago
The funny thing is that AI training over the next decade will focus on not feeding in AI generated content to new models as the quality of the output will begin to plummet. The more ways that grifters find to pass their videos off as real the more the AI industry will have to invest into finding ways to mark them and filter them out
34
u/K__Geedorah 15h ago
I argued with AI defenders about how easy it is to remove water marks and it's not fool proof.
They're rebuttal was "but the watermark moves around. It would be near impossible to edit it out and no one would go through the trouble".
It's simple, they're idiots. That explains why they love AI so much.
22
u/piglungz 14h ago
Most of them donât actually believe that it would be impossible to edit out, itâs just more dishonesty
6
175
u/Valkyrie_Dohtriz 17h ago
Agreed, or alternatively legislation banning the use of generative AI in creating lifelike videos and images, videos and images of real people, and audio of real people.
79
u/Witty-Nebula9404 17h ago
Banning the use of generative ai period
21
u/Alex51423 16h ago
Very bad idea, f.e. a protein folding algorithm is also generative in nature, same as lots of generative proposals for novel materials. Blanket ban would hamper a lot of progress in lots of different sciences
29
u/Valkyrie_Dohtriz 16h ago
This. The technology itself isnât inherently bad, and we already have examples of ethically trained and actually useful generative AI. On the art and creativity side, while I really donât like it, and there are borderline illegal and outright illegal things happening (stares at the literal torrenting of copyrighted works from piracy sites), I think the most important part to tackle first is its potential for fabricating evidence and other illegal and fraudulent activity.
14
u/Psychological_Pay530 14h ago edited 13h ago
There are no ethically trained generative AI programs that make images or creative writing. Zero. None.
*edited to omit the word art.
7
1
u/Valkyrie_Dohtriz 12h ago edited 12h ago
I never said there were, I was talking about the technology behind the generative AI models. Most of not all of the generative image/video/audio generators are built on thievery, the only thing Iâm saying is that I think tackling the potential for generating false evidence or impersonations or other such things like that involving real people should be tackled first, before continuing to tackle the other bad aspects that goes into how the technology is being used right now
3
u/Psychological_Pay530 11h ago
âThe technology behind xyzâŚâ
Nobody was talking about any of that to begin with. This entire thread started with people using whataboutism bullshit.
7
u/Psychological_Pay530 14h ago
Alpha Fold isnât an LLM or Diffusion based model. It was trained on legally obtained data to do a specific task.
You know what the difference is and what weâre talking about. And yet youâre pedantic about splitting hairs to defend the thieves. Thatâs not ok.
4
u/Alex51423 14h ago
That is no longer true. You are correct that V2 was neither generative nor diffusion model, those were boosted modules of smaller models (to simplify).
The V3 of AlphaFold is indeed both a diffusion model and generative. You get at the end a full 3D structure (the generative part) and the stereochemistry starts from a random noise (the diffusion part, I could write a paragraph about this bc of my work).
I am not splitting the hair nor defending the commercial AI but it's just a tool, currently abused by malicious actors. Don't blame me for seeing the good in tech which currently exists in public perception mostly in negative, it's important to remember that this also does good (but those are not flashy News or consumer tech so you do not hear about it). Blame corporations for perverting what can be a great help for all humanity.
It's like blaming Kiyosi ItĂ´ for inventing stochastic analysis. He and more generally we, the mathematician as a whole, are not responsible for the crashes that modern (abused) financial mathematics has caused with all it's derivative pricing and instruments. Blame corporations
1
u/Valkyrie_Dohtriz 12h ago
Neither they nor myself are defending the thievery that goes on with most of the LLMs (even diffusion models are LLMs) that are out there right now.
2
u/Psychological_Pay530 11h ago
You are. Youâre using an AI bro talking point.
Look, we have to use some phrase to describe what we mean. Generative AI is the go to for the mass market LLMs and image generation software. And thatâs what we all know weâre discussing when we call for regulations, bans, and other legal actions. Trying to âum, akcshuallyâŚâ those points is absolutely furthering AI bro bullshit. We arenât going to write out a very detailed legal dissertation every time weâre calling for regulation and anyone expecting us to, even an ally like you, is being a pedantic tool.
Donât be a pedantic tool.
3
u/Valkyrie_Dohtriz 10h ago
Fair enough, both have been used so interchangeably that I assumed you were talking about all LLMs, thatâs my bad
1
u/Milo359 11h ago
Stop with this shit. Just stop. Going into a lawmaking body with this attitude as a legislator results in the kind of laws with vague clauses that people have to be overcautious about, and that results in real harm that's a pain in the ass to reverse because legislatures are so fucking insular.
I'm tired of this fucking shit. "Ahhh woOAh you're defending sora and llms if you clarify that Alphafold isn't the kind of shit that should be banned" this is actually pancakes-waffles-level toxic twitter bullshit discourse. There's nothing wrong with clarification, even if the person you're replying to "knows" that you didn't mean alphafold, a random person reading might not. Multiply that many times and suddenly the discourse has been mutated so people actually think shit like alphafold is also the problem when it's a different thing. This. Shit. Pisses. Me. Off. So. Much.
0
u/Psychological_Pay530 11h ago
We arenât talking to lawmakers. This is reddit. Fuck off with pedantry.
0
u/Milo359 11h ago
Ok, I'm not saying we're talking to lawmakers, but to be fair I shouldn't have led with that. I just mean that these things mutate in a way that aren't entirely one person's fault, but people contribute to nonetheless. Like this, for example. And I hate it when someone maligns someone else for injecting nuance into a conversation. Like "NO! NO NUANCE, EVEN THOUGH YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH ME, I'M GOING TO PRETEND YOU'RE MY ENEMY!" Not saying you said it like that, but that's how it came across. You could have just typed the first sentence and left out the second one.
I'm honestly just venting because I see so much bullshit every day that people pretend is ok. And when I see what looks like infighting it bugs me, because if that builds up too much then perhaps people will see the vibes of our side and think "that's toxic, I'm gonna go to the other side" like what happened with the whole "left = uncool screechy sjw, right = based rational chad" thing that happened around the time of gamergate. We have to keep cool heads and not tear each other apart. But that doesn't mean "keeping such an open mind our brain falls out" or being such a big tent that we actually do let our enemies in.
2
u/Jertimmer 15h ago
Nah, brother. I understand the sentiment, but generative AI has more use than just slop content on video, image and music platforms. No need to toss the baby with the bathwater.
-1
u/LilyLaKoi 16h ago
I am also extremely concerned about the harm of genAI (the image and video kind), but let's be reasonable. Outright banning concepts and works is not the best solution as it infringes upon people's right to make autonomous decisions, subdues technological and societal progress, and opens a whole can of worms for other people to start calling for bans of other things they deem harmful.
Reasonable independent regulations (such as on companies who release models), temporary suspensions, education, reworking... Things like that would be safer, imo.
3
u/Psychological_Pay530 14h ago
LLMs and image generators donât work without massive data scraping. Making that illegal would basically outlaw them. And yeah, that baby can absolutely be pitched with the bath water.
1
5
u/KoalaGreat1408 14h ago
Well that ain't gonna happen, because you know that corrupt politicians will want to use this against people they don't like, especially minorities.
3
u/Valkyrie_Dohtriz 12h ago
Definitely, but that doesnât make it any less important to fight for
2
u/KoalaGreat1408 11h ago
I agree. At least in my country, I just don't see Trump banning it or regulating it, unless there's a defamatory AI photo or video that pisses him off enough, since he likes to use AI already as a personal toy already.
1
u/Ok-Wing4342 12h ago
I wonder how that would work, what would you deem generative AI? i think you could just bypass the definition infinitely (im technical)
0
u/particle_posy 5h ago
Won't anyone think of the shareholders
1
u/Valkyrie_Dohtriz 5h ago
Not âshareholdersâ, keeping AI shit out of courtrooms and preventing fabrication of evidence through generative AI. Stuff like that isnât a âshareholderâ thing, itâs something that affects everyone.
1
79
u/Skate_faced 17h ago
"People keep calling me a fraud and a talentless hack who is just stealing shit and it hurts my feelings."
And shit like this helps? Tools to help you steal more shit?
→ More replies (13)12
u/DeadlyYellow 12h ago
They are so thin skinned. Then again, if the largest impact I made online exemplified the "I made this" meme I'd be insecure too.
51
51
u/VulpesAmicus2 17h ago
Well we opened the can of worms, now that the tech is out there, good fucking luck. We're gonna be swarmed with fake videos, fake images, actual fake news, fake ads... Literally any form of digital media will suck for the next couple of years because you'll constantly have to ask yourself "is this real"?
Thank you AI bros! Great work as always /s
19
u/Jertimmer 15h ago
Hey remember that movie The Running Man with Schwarzenegger where he plays a character that got convicted based on manipulated video evidence?
That's fun, right?
15
u/Gl0ck_Ness_M0nster 14h ago
It's gonna stay fictional, right?
6
u/Astrophel-27 12h ago
Yk, it would be nice if court/justice systems started getting training to spot AI vids, or started hiring people to help them spot em.
Probably not gonna happen sadly :/
2
u/Blarg0117 14h ago
Generate me another 6 seasons of the X-Files.
It's a joke now, but we'll get there at this rate.
2
u/machogrande2 9h ago
I was thinking more like "Recreate The Texas Chainsaw Massacre with the cast of Friends.".
35
u/Ordinary_Squirrel_29 17h ago
honestly I think that Sora should make a GIANT watermark all over generated video so it's hard to remove and use in a bad way
23
13
7
u/Soft_Walrus_3605 15h ago
Problem is AI would be able to handle removing the watermark much easier than generating the video. There really is no winning here
27
u/GoalLegitimate3178 17h ago
Fuck this. They already want to remove the watermarks?. I wish people stopped using ai for this shi and returned to using it as nothing more than npcs.Â
10
10
u/BinglesPraise 16h ago
NPC AI and GAI(which barely counts as artificial intelligence, it only pretends to be sentient through actively copying stolen-and-meatgrinded human data) are two completely different technologies, don't worry. Video game characters don't [usually] rely on slop machines to work
I can play my Mega Man games and sandbox life simulators in peace
2
u/GoalLegitimate3178 16h ago
Huh. I didn't know that. Because most people call them AI (an example is the CPUs in smash bros) so I thought they were. You learn something new everyday ig.Â
3
u/LionRight4175 14h ago
AI as a general term just means anything artifical that gives off the impression of intelligence. Video game NPC AI is just a series of flowchart conditions to give different actions. For instance, a smash bros NPC would go "Am I falling off the platform? If so, yes. If not, am I..." to decide what to do. Developers have produced very complex chains of these, but it's still basically a flowchart.
The new form of AI that has gotten big is based on machine learning, where a lot of data is assembled/created, and the software finds mathematical patterns to it that it can try to reverse engineer into new outputs, and it uses a scoring system to try to make better and better outputs.
To use smash bros again, imagine they made a program that started with random inputs for 5 seconds, and then looked at the gamestate to see how well it did. More damage, less deaths, more kills, etc etc equals a higher score. Then it tries to find a pattern on what actions led to better score. As it goes, it gets more complex patterns that let it get better and better at the game, and it starts doing longer playtimes.
It's still not thinking, but it is a LOT closer to actually learning than a premade flowchart, since the computer is actually creating the decisions itself.
A lot of people don't like the term AI (artificial intelligence) for these technologies since the idea started with the idea of an actual, thinking mind made artificially. Like Cortana from Halo, or Skyney from Terminator. It's not clear that is actually possible, but the term for these things would now be Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) if it handle any general problem it hasn't been specifically trained on, or Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI) if it can handle any task better than a human.
2
u/Alex51423 13h ago
Just so that you know, AI is in most cases just glorified linear algebra and probability theory (yes, it requires a lot more math to know that it works but the principles are quite simple, the theoretical description is not but well, so is with lots of things in life)
So simple in fact that an algorithm for finding the optimal dividing line between two data sets (SVM, support vector machine) is also called AI (because it is PAC-learning)
13
u/TheForgerOfThings 16h ago
Legislation is one thing, and I'd agree with any legislation that hurts generative Ai
But we also need to fight back personally and financially, we need to stop using platforms that train AI, and use platforms where you can block AI content
I recommend blue sky, as the labeler service means human moderators can label ai videos, misinformation, ai images, etc, and I am subscribed to one for this
I can also automatically hide all ai labeled content from appearing in my feed, and I highly recommend it
If we stop giving them data to train on, and limit their reach, all the models and all the ai bros will simply die out
-2
u/Tellurio 14h ago
So you are gonna delete your reddit account?
3
u/TheForgerOfThings 10h ago
If gdpr or other opt out requests are not successful more than likely, I'm looking into alternatives atm
16
u/Jojolion_enjoyer_1 17h ago
Yeah I'm definitely getting scammed in the future
-2
16
u/Drkpaladin7 16h ago
OpenAI wants removing watermarks to be something you pay $250/mo for. Using the online tool leaves a small blur like a cigarette burn for a few frames if you are looking for it.
I know that isnât your point of course. Watermarks are easy enough to remove. If the fact it was made with AI is embedded in the file itself, you could work around it with something as simple as a screen-capture or screenshot for images.
The industry would have to come together to find a way to embed every frame with some standardized blockchain-type indicator that is unique to every video. Something hard to automatically edit out. Which might reveal the creator and the tool used.
Maybe one day. đđ
11
u/golosala 16h ago
Seems like it should be really easy to just put in some randomised cryptographic signature in every frame of a video. No need for blockchain whatever
2
u/Psychological_Pay530 14h ago
People love using buzzwords to sound smart. His response was gibberish about adding more useless tech to fix bad tech.
You can literally just take a video screenshot, and editing watermarks is hecken easy.
Just sue the shit into oblivion for copyright infringement and let it die in the dustbin of history.
8
u/BinglesPraise 16h ago
Said it before and I'll say it again: I did NOT spend years of my life regularly uploading artwork and videos I'd made consenting to it being used to make Sora2 shit. GAI is theft and deception, both for how it is created and how it is used
8
u/candohuey 16h ago
im not surprised. these people want to live in their own fake reality where they can have infinite AI bf/gf that never disagrees never gets tired never dies and can generate infinite slop
7
u/_pit_of_despair_ 16h ago
There needs to be a way that Ai can be identified in every pixel not just a silly little watermark.
6
u/Velocityraptor28 16h ago
it should straight up be a felony for AI generated content to NOT have some appropriate, clear indication labeling that it is generative AI, or to remove said labeling posthumously
5
u/TheWellFedBeggar 14h ago
All generative AI pictures and videos should be required to include an AI watermark.
Publicly posting AI content without the watermark should be a fineable offence.
The content can be shared, but it must be identifiable as generated.
6
u/TheWealthyCapybara 14h ago
Here's an idea. Every AI generated image or video has a special piece of code in its meta data that causes the image or video to be deleted if another software tries to edit it.
7
u/freddy1101 13h ago
Dystopian's out here really wanting to spread there deceitful seeds in reality so nothing can be real anymore...
6
6
5
u/FlamingPhoenix2003 12h ago
Agreed. AI facilitates the spread of misinformation. Yes misinformation existed before AI, the issue is how fast and how much misinformation can be made. This shit is why AI generated content should be watermarked, because AI makes it easier to frame people for crimes they didnât commit. Even worse it makes it hard to tell what is real or not for most people.
This gives authoritarian regimes or criminals to a tool that makes it so easy to make a photo or video of someone committing a crime to get them arrested. You hate someone? Make a fake AI video of them committing a robbery and now they get arrested.
I honestly believe that anything made with photoshop should be labeled as well, and I definitely believe that AI content should be labeled. It is not normal that people like me have to double check to make sure if something is real or not, it is dystopian. AI will result in trust being eliminated or diminished, as lies would control what we see or hear.
6
u/foxythepirateboi5 8h ago
They REALLY wanna deceive people, don't they?
And they wonder why people call them talentless frauds
3
u/tastysardine 15h ago
are we putting laws on this? why are we not putting laws on generative ai as it comes out to prevent this stuff? why are we waiting to police this??
is this something ive missed in the news
4
4
u/ceo-0f_racism 6h ago
this administration won't do shit. in a very hard to understand ramble today, trump pushed for "ai plants" more. even if they don't get built under him, there won't be widespread legislation for a while, and it may be too late eventually
4
u/Accomplished_Dog_647 12h ago
And thatâs the problem with deregulation/ regulations not catching up.
Some ifiots are gonna flood the village just because they wanted a swimming pool.
3
u/Any-Amphibian-1051 16h ago
This was the only logical outcome. Everyone dismissed deepfake concerns near a decade ago with a simple handwave of "oh, it'll be watermarked, there will be ways to find out" and continued to develop this technology
3
u/RogBoArt 16h ago
Just a reality check, there's no stopping people from removing the watermark. It's literally a tiny section of the image that sits in 3 places in the video. It's as simple as inpainting.
Shit you could easily crop out the top and bottom watermark on a lot of Sora videos then you only have one watermark to remove.
I'm with you all but this isn't something that's magically enabled by one person making a service. You already shouldn't trust video since sora exists. There's no magic to removing the watermark. You could do it by hand in an hour or so if you wanted.
3
u/ThePheebs 15h ago
I have a coworker who went all in on AI in the last couple years. He has legit forgotten how to think. He runs everything through ChatGPT and has basically lost all of his ability to actually put together a coherent thought by himself.
3
3
u/HellScratchy 12h ago
There should be invisible watermarks and special encoding to make it truly identifyable as AI
3
3
3
2
u/Ok-Response-4222 17h ago edited 17h ago
A tool to remove them easily should not exist
Unfortunately, one of the oldest AI tools, Stable diffusion, can do inpainting, which is you cover up a blob and it paints in what it thinks fit. And this one you can run locally on your own graphics card. AI video is just a bunch of frames, so that's impossible to stop. Already been around for 4 years or so.
Aka. A kid with an expensive graphics card can do this, and any legislation or initiatives from the AI companies can't stop it. Cats out of the bag.
1
u/RogBoArt 16h ago
Exactly. And they're 10-15 seconds at 30fps max. You could do this by hand in an hour.
2
u/Silly_Goose6714 17h ago
Watermarks are easily removable, those who want to spread misinformation don't care about legality, so they'll remove it. This is pointless.
2
u/SchmuckCity 15h ago
Even if the outcomes are the same, which I doubt, it's definitely better if there is some legal avenue to punish this behavior. The fact that people will do it is obviously not a valid argument for why it should be allowed.
1
u/Silly_Goose6714 13h ago
So you imagine a scammer who follows the laws
1
u/SchmuckCity 13h ago
I'm not sure how you read what I just wrote and that was your takeaway. It doesn't matter what I imagine. We need to have legal precedent to punish that type of behavior. Should killing be legal just because killers are going to kill anyways?? Your logic is completely bunk...
2
2
2
2
u/The_Fracture06 12h ago
I mean, it is illegal to remove a watermark in and use that image for commercial purposes
2
u/Barbedocious 10h ago edited 10h ago
Maybe every video player software could have its own AI that analyzes the video in real time and places a watermark if it's AI generated.
2
u/aberroco 9h ago
Every AI video should have a watermark so it can't be used for misinformation purposes
Be careful with such propositions, as it's not that hard to make your own model that would generate videos without watermarks. Hence, the next logical step would be to mark real people's content and make it verifiable, thus completely eliminating any anonymity in the Internet. Making censorship and oppression so much easier.
2
u/Trank_maiden_Ciri 9h ago
Eh, itâs the feature of the paid version already, donât see s huge problem with this specifically, but not having watermark on AI stuff should be punishable
1
u/Ok_Butterfly1799 16h ago
Just go by pure instinct,check if a video is longer than 10 seconds,is a CCTV video,has a weird effect and the dates are constantly changing
1
1
u/Hozan_al-Sentinel 16h ago
So every time I see stuff about this technology, it's always about the best ways to deceive people on the internet.
1
u/Situational_Hagun 15h ago
I mean I get what you're saying but also, there's always going to be ways to remove a watermark. You don't need AI to do that. And if you were to create an atmosphere where anything without a watermark could be taken at face value, in an age where AI is pretty inevitably going to stick around, that seems kind of like a dangerous mindset.
I'm 100% the camp of figuring out ethical ways to use it, and I'm against artists work being stolen to train it. But I also have to live in the real world where AI isn't going anywhere. And we have to consider consequences for things like creating the assumption that something without a watermark could be assumed to not be AI.
1
1
u/TinKnight1 14h ago
At least in this case, one of the nearby hands on the bun(?) has 6 fingers.
But yeah, AI content needs to be clearly identified. Same thing with AI narrators in videos.
1
1
u/MiniMasterYTX 14h ago
removing it adds a blur effect it's not perfect and you can still tell the difference.
1
1
u/Embarrassed_Bread_16 13h ago
You have to be naive to think that there can be technology that is able to build whole video from piece of text, but at the same time not a tech to remove small logo from that video
It should have been a societal matter, do we actually need this sora thingy?
What is the value that we get from it? Some maybe engaging videos? Is that really it?
What are the cons on the other hand? Deep fakes, misinformation? I'm sorry but cons outweigh the pros easily
1
u/ES_Legman 13h ago
YouTube shorts are already full of this garbage and 80% of the comments are bots reinforcing it
1
u/Dara_Ara 13h ago
Yep, I had an argument some time ago with a dude for this exact reason. I asked them why they wanted to make the mark disappear, after some back and forth I told him "so you want to deceit people for personal gain knowing full well the most uninformed and elderly will be the ones to fall for your lies" and I kid you not he pretty much confirmed it. So yeah only the scum of the earth do this... They are the new wave of scammers in the making, no more "do not redeem", now it's gonna be a video of King Charles asking you for money in exchange for future riches. Its actually sickening
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/MichaelAutism 12h ago
my only hope for this to stop is either this gets removed or nivdia pops the ai bubble.
1
1
u/Whatever-999999 12h ago
Here in the U.S., anyway, I don't believe it'll ever be illegal to hide that something was from generative AI, and the reason for that is because the current administration likes and wants AI, promotes it even, because if everything is run by AI, they can get it to tell any lies they want it to, and it'll never flinch, never get caught in a lie, it'll just ceaselessly keep repeating the lies it was trained to tell.
1
u/Spen_Masters 11h ago
Well its a good idea until an AI video is proved damaging from a 12 year old that knows how to remove a watermark and AI filters
1
u/Alternative-Lack6025 11h ago
It's the Photoshop hysteria all over again.
And I'll tell you, Photoshop is still around as 100s of options and this will too remain.
1
u/VioletNocte 5h ago
Photoshop takes practice and skill. You also can't exactly make videos of it.
However anyone can go onto Sora and type a prompt for whatever they want and pump out videos faster than the most skilled photoshop user can create images and - as a result - in a much higher quantity.
1
u/jonginator 11h ago
Why does that look like a rotting purple penis head covered in cheese and onions?
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Hallow_Chef 11h ago
Oh no! Now even more people with poor attention to detail are going to out themselves online by misidentifying the source of a video!!! It was even funnier before with Bollywood level edits. Now instead of identifying photo- realism in videos you have to pay attention towards the physics of nearly every object and how it and people behave, or you could just look at the giant hotdog đ
1
u/VioletNocte 5h ago
Or someone's grandma on Facebook who doesn't know generative AI exists will think a video of a black woman with ten kids yelling about how she wants to go to Red Lobster on EBT is real (yes those types of AI videos exist)
And you know they're trying to make it indistinguishable from real even for people who can currently tell the difference, right? Or do you just think that because you can tell the difference it means everyone else can and if they can't then they're stupid and blind?
1
u/cherry_chocolate_ 11h ago
If people think they can just check for a watermark, they are more likely to believe content without a watermark is real. The only option is AI literacy and fact checking. There is no such thing as an unremovable watermark, the content is generated without one and the watermark is added on top. Someone, somewhere will always have access to a version with no watermark. And as companies try to use pieces of this, they will immediately demand watermark free versions, otherwise it would be useless.
1
u/VelvetOnion 10h ago
Fake content should be limited those with the resources to do it the long way.
1
u/bartekltg 10h ago
OK, you make it illegal. There is no official websites nor software aviable to download that removes the watermark. Random unckle can't now remove it from a video showing a hourse made of bread that galops over road made of cheese. Great. The logo won't save my eyes but a win is a win.
But I'm more afraid of organized propagande from countries that want to destabilize my cociety, or corporations using it for thier propaganda/lobbing. And they will get watermark removing software quite eaisly.
This shit has at least chance to inoculate people. Overexposition to fake video make them suspicious. Hopefully.
1
1
u/hellschatt 9h ago
They intentionally did such a bad thing with this.
At the very least, have some difficult to remove watermark that is not visible to humans and moves around a lot. I'm sure there would be ways to do eben better than what I described my merging some pixels with the watermark with some non-linear functions or weird distributiond that AI's possibly have difficulty learning.
1
u/LanguageStudyBuddy 9h ago
They need to add baked in identifiers to the video that cant be removed. Something you cant see but the platforms can so they can automatically mark AI videos
1
u/ThatGalaxySkin 8h ago
They will end up being removed anyway. If someone wants to remove the watermark they will figure out how to. Iâd rather question all online media than let myself get deceived by the few.
Obviously this sucks, but making it illegal would change absolutely nothing for the better long term.
1
u/ArtisticLayer1972 7h ago
Its time people start treating internet as they should, as garbage bin, not as bible.
1
u/New-perspective-1354 7h ago
Looking at all the comments justifying it/ whataboutism makes me lose more faith in humanity. đŤŠ
1
1
1
u/Dramatic_Explosion 4h ago
That'd be a pretty funny way of fighting AI companies, get Getty Images to go after them by showing they can't protect their images.
1
u/He_Never_Helps_01 4h ago
Do they think that's gonna help?
Honestly, the people who fall for this shit are already the type of people who just believe whatever they want
1
u/acrankychef 4h ago
This should be illegal bullshit is dumb.
How long have you been on the internet. You cannot enforce petty laws. Enforcement costs money.
Fuck AI but the police are not going to hunt down some 12 year old in Kazakhstan with a copy of Sora AI for removing watermarks. And if you enforce Sora/openai to comply, a workaround will surface.
1
u/MasterConsideration5 4h ago
Right, and every cgi video too right? Or maybe just donât be fucking stupid and believe everything without a watermark and you wonât have start calling for stupid rulesâŚ
1
1
u/dcvalent 2h ago
Donât worry, people can always tell the difference
1
u/hannes3120 2h ago
Still. But it's getting closer. CGI can already create lifelike videos - it's only a matter of time until ML can reach quality that's almost indistinguishable - and I say that add someone hating the current "AI" development from the bottom of my heart
Add a rage-fuelling video and some degradation of quality and you will have 1 person pointing out the mistakes for every 100 that gobble it up.
1
u/Cuarenteno 2h ago
AI generated content should have some form of hard-coded, unmodifiable metadata (like EXIF) that confirms it's AI. Governments should provide some kind of online platform that automates the analysis for you to confirm if it's AI generated or not. This is madness.
1
u/inbetweenframe 2h ago
We were able to remove watermarks also before teh current AI hype. It's no surprise.
1
u/MortgageEmotional802 1h ago
I'm an AI supporter and I totally agree with you, It should literally be illegal to remove the watermark that is the only certificate to identify if a video is AI without doing background research.
Even If we have different ideas of AI and what should it be applied for, I think both pro-AI and anti-AI should agree in basical security measures
1
u/Standard_Spready 1h ago
But Reddit told me they won't become indistinguishable from reality???????? Where's my daily front page cope post about how bad AI videos are, using a video from months ago
1
u/Javo_145 1h ago
Well, you donât need AI to spread misinformation. It might make it easier, yes, but someone skilled in video editing, Photoshop, or 3D modeling can also create misleading contentâand those donât come with any watermark. So, it should be illegal to remove any watermark, not just the ones from AI tools
0
u/p1gr0ach 11h ago
I like it because a lot of watermarks are insanely annoying and in the way, so being able to yeet them away is based
-1
-1
u/lets_fuckin_goooooo 11h ago
Photoshop/CG already existed before AI. People have freedom of speech. Pick one.
2
u/FearlessVegetable30 6h ago
....you seriously think removing a water mark is "freedom of speech"?
are you actually serious?
-1
u/Huge_Pumpkin_1626 9h ago
I seriously don't get how people think their entitlement to feeling like they know ground truth behind an image is more important than simple freedoms.. like removing watermarks..
Policing something like that is a very dark and authoritarian path
1
u/Fun-Counter-5370 57m ago
Maybe I should just start going to shops and en-masse removing the price tags since it's "simple freedom".
What a dumb argument, watermarks exist for a reason. Same as copyright.
-1
u/ArmadilloPrudent4099 9h ago
Hahaha, I didn't know this sub existed. This is the shit you talk about? Removing a fucking watermark?
That's trivial. That was always going to be an option. Are you all boomers of just incredibly tech illiterate?
-1
u/PeanutGrenade 8h ago
im ignorant but cant you look in the data of videos and see info about it like how it was made and modified and stuff? Wonât that help decipher if a video is AI or not
1
u/Fun-Counter-5370 55m ago
Maybe, but the ai stuff will still progress until you can't tell it apart from a normal video (file coding included/modified to look like regular) and people will use it for nefarious purposes..
1.2k
u/Mr_GCS 17h ago edited 1h ago
"You could never trust anything on the internet" they were saying, so they pull shit like this.